Going to add my two cents here. I didn't read the entire thread, so
hopefully this isn't irrelevant by now. :-)
I think asking people what you should name something is a waste of
time. It's largely a subjective issue, just pick a name and go with
it, but using $ as a prefix is nasty and breaks convention with
Prototype's current use of $ as utility functions.
As far as the implementation goes, I like Mislav's suggestion and it's
what Base uses. You can add class methods and instance methods at the
same time which is pretty useful.
I'm completely against magic properties to specify methods (e.g.
ClassMethods: {}, etc). We should use what JavaScript gives us--the
ability to pass arguments. Class.extend(Cat, {}, {}) vs.
Class.extend(Cat, { ClassMethods: {}, InstanceMethods: {}}); I
prefer #1. As far as aliasing goes, I'm happy with the current way
because I rarely need it, but I could see something like
Object.alias(Foo, 'bar', 'baz') solving the problem.
On Jun 25, 10:05 am, "Skip Baney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You can't achieve this in JavaScript. Simply let it go.
>
> Word.
>
> I like Mislav's approach to keep all the OOP functionality in Class.
> Really don't want anything cluttering up the methods or properties of my
> classes.
> No real opinion on the name of the super method as long as it's private (as
> it is in Alex Arnell's code).
>
> Finally, thanks for putting the effort into this... it was the last thing I
> felt was missing from prototype.
> I'm glad to see it in the pipeline.
>
> - Skip
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
