On Jun 25, 11:29 am, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also like to throw in the idea that we need to prove the final
> OO-design decisions with use cases. We can write animal-sounds code all
> day long, but JavaScript is such a unique language, I think we ought to
> prove the design by creating some actual web-app Widgets that become
> quicker to write and become more maintainable and extensible by using OO
> patterns.
There are very few opportunities for inheritance in the Prototype
source code, but take a look at ajax.js in the inheritance branch; I
refactored it to use the new (proposed) syntax.
Perhaps someone could volunteer to convert a piece of Scriptaculous or
Rico just for illustration purposes?
On Jun 25, 2:30 pm, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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.
After some thought, I'm in favor of keeping them the way they are.
Consider the built-in "constructor" property -- arguably an
implementation detail, but one that's worth exposing for
introspection. I'd want "superclass" and "subclasses" to *feel* like
constructor.
Cheers,
Andrew
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
