On 6/25/07, Adam McCrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For superclass and subclasses, what do folks think about prefixing them > with an underscore and making them "private", in the name of keeping the API > as simple as possible. Do you think you'll actually use them if they are > exposed?
To be honest - we're not sure. In Ruby they are useful because of the highly dynamic nature of the language and metaprogramming. JavaScript is also highly dynamic, so it may be useful to be able to inspect objects at runtime. I sincerely doubt that people will need properties or methods named "superclass" or "subclasses" in their code. But, maybe this feature is a bit too much. We just don't know what the possible use-cases can be. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
