Just to keep things concrete, here's my take on how the syntax could
be implemented:


This way, inheritance will still work for methods added to 'this'
inside the closure, and Class.extend can be used elsewhere in the


* Can this feature be left to third parties with special needs?
To be honest, yes, it can: http://pastie.textmate.org/90951

* Could this syntax simplify Prototype's own implementation (i.e., is
Prototype itself a third party with a special need :)?
I think so, and in ways that might not be obvious; e.g., stuff like
this: http://pastie.textmate.org/90953
I haven't even begun to do an exhaustive audit, but I would bet this
syntax allows an improvement almost anywhere an underscored property
is used.  On a quick glance-through, Element._attributeTranslations
jumped out at me.

* [Your burning question here]?
I'm glad you asked!

Them's my thoughts.

On Aug 24, 3:54 am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The alternate syntax suggested by Ben Newman and supported by Alex is
> demonstrated in these two 
> pastes:http://pastie.caboo.se/90313(Ben)http://pastie.textmate.org/90584(Alex)
> The syntax is slightly more verbose than what we have in 1.6.0, but with it
> it's dead easy to have true privacy for variables and methods. As Alex shows
> in the last thread, it's also simple to implement in just few lines of code.
> I would like to hear how do the others feel about this syntax. Core members:
> would we want to support this in the framework?

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 

Reply via email to