Yet, I'd really like the proto core team to answer these. My questions
more far-reaching than they may seem to be.
sense, it's prototype-oriented. And to make it truly to support OOP
paradigmas can be perhaps the goal the language has never been
supposed to reach in the first place. However, understandably, it
remains a challenge for every professional js-programmer, to do
something in the OOP direction.
I'm no novice here, I've seen a lot of bad OOP implementations. And
I'm sure you all have. It'll be a drag to devise a clever inheritance
mechanism to only inflate the valuable library and to never really use
such inheritance for the reason it seems so complex and un-
maintainable for real-world applications. I'm tracking prototype's
progress almost since its conception on the web. And so forth, it
seems, Object.extend ans Class.create served well. I hope that
whatever becomes out of elaborating it [=base part], will be as robust
and useful as its predecessors.
That's why I'm offering my share in it. If you're interested to have a
look, just ask. No - no. Our code I'm offering is far from ideal,
however in the hands of prototype team it may really become something.
As it always have.
On Sep 3, 9:14 pm, Robert Katić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> I am not in dev team but I think that same things I can tell you.
> 1. In every script language all methods are "virtual" because those we
> call through instance reference ("this" in JS) and methods are
> reachede dynamically through parrent chain (prototype chain in JS).
> 2. In JS there is no standard way to get a stack informations, so we
> have to wrap real method and provide a way to reach the parent method.
> Of corse we can do a generic method for every method in prototype to
> be able to call parent method in this way: "ASuperClass.foo(this,...)"
> instead of "ASuperClass.prototype.foo.call(this, ...)" but it is no
> the same... I implemented this kind of solution in my module...
> VMT and JS? It's a kind of higher level language parsed to real JS
> code? I am curious.
> 3. It's not truth. You will inherit all properties of parent prototype
> object. For now in 1.6.0_rc0 you don't inherit "static" properties but
> maybe it will changed...
> I hope I have answered to your questions regardless my bad english...
> On Sep 3, 6:20 pm, Andrew Red <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> > A set of questions related to inheritance in Prototype:
> > 1. will there be virtual methods?
> > Like, if A is B's parent;
> > A has a() and b() methods;
> > B has only b();
> > oB is an instance of B.
> > So oB.a() to call A#a() with oB as execution context and
> > oB.b() to call B#b() with the same oB as context.
> > And to make a true virtual method calls possible, to call A#b() from
> > oB there's to be a base object reference support. Wich brings me to
> > the second point:
> > 2. Is there 'base' reference analogy? (Please read on.) Being
> > from .NET environment, I'd of course expect to use something like
> > this.base.b() to access A#b() (with oB as a context). But I'm sure you
> > got different ideas on that.
> > Of course, I saw your "$super", first argument. But it makes base
> > class reference possible _only_ if the first argument of the
> > subclass'es constructor specified, and named '$super'. Doesn't it look
> > awkward? I mean, why not leave a constuctor function as is? No plans?
> > We've had an extension library for Prototype to implement just that.
> > Would you like to have a look? (We use a sort of VMT hash to call
> > methods and it's pretty much crafty written.)
> > 3. It also seems that child has only parent's methods, not properties.
> > Why?
> > I appreciate your aswering to this no less than reading it. Thank you
> > in advance.
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Revinsky- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
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