Is Base an option for the naming of the parent class?
Gareth
On 6/25/07, Kjell Bublitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Parent:
> Please don't overuse the $ sign. It should be used for utilities and
> nothing else. Don't mix it in other areas, such as classes.
>
> Saying that, i still think it is good to introduce a "parent" property
> .. To make it more convenient, name it "parentClass". Easy to adopt
> and no dollar.
>
> Style:
> I prefer the style Tobie Langel posted, because "Class.create" means
> the same as "new Class", so saying "Class.create" is a bit verbose for
> that matter. "new" explains it all.
>
> How about this?
>
> var Animal = new Class({
> initialize: ..
> });
> var Cat = new Class({
> extends: [Animal],
> initialize: ..
> });
>
> "initialize" is reserved, why not "extends" too - allowing the "Class"
> constructor to automatically extend the new class by just looking at
> the content of "extends".
>
> I think this is pretty straight forward, instead of using a new method
> for everything.. (create, add, extend)
>
> It should work "by definition".
>
>
> On 6/25/07, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 25, 7:50 am, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 7:48 pm, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I personally prefer the following syntax:
> > >
> > > > var Animal = new Class({
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > });
> > >
> > > > var Cat = new Class(Animal, {
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > });
> > >
> > > I abhor this syntax. I wish I could put it any more mildly.
> > >
> > > In languages with class-based inheritance, class creation and class
> > > instantiation are two separate concepts. Defining a class is done
> > > within a control structure. I can think of nothing more confusing than
> > > instantiating Class to create your class, then instantiating your
> > > class to create an instance of the class you just instantiated with
> > > Class.
> >
> > Yes, but JavaScript is different. The class is really a (function)
> > object in JavaScript - it isn't common, but this makes JavaScript a
> > very flexible language. We can't compare JavaScript in everything to
> > other OO languages.
> > This approach (using new) is very interesting and innovative for
> > me :-)
> > But other solutions are pretty too :-)
> >
> > > > Also, I think that this.sup or this.$super would be safer than using
> > > > this.parent, which, in the realm of DOM scripting might be used
> pretty
> > > > often inside classes already.
> > >
> > > "this.$super" is fine with me
> >
> > "parent" is very popular name for an attribute. Please don't use it.
> > The most natural, IMHO, seems to treat all new attributes and methods
> > added by prototype as "magic" and prefix them with anything (as
> > prototype uses the dollar sign ($) frequently for added stuff, it
> > would be most natural choice again).
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
