Just to keep things concrete, here's my take on how the syntax could
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
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
> 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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at