Sure. Handling namespacing inside of the global scope is one issue, and it's pretty simple to deal with... but what about extended prototypes?
How am I supposed to know that some other script / lib / framework, hasn't extended Function.prototype.bind with something else, something that would *totally* break Prototype ? What's the point in handling the global scope issue if we're not handling that issue too ? And we all know what that implies. Best, Tobie Dr Nic wrote: > Lack of namespace management is thing to be fixed, not protected as > sacred. > > Whether its unittest or a widget that needs to coshare JavaScript-land > with other widgets built ontop of other frameworks, I think it should > be possible, not impossible. > > Nic > > On Jan 31, 2:50 am, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 30 jan, 17:22, Dr Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Alternately, can I have permission to make unittest independent of > > > prototype? :P > > > > > I did look at it _very briefly_ and realised that I just needed to > > > cleanup the use of $. > > > > If multi framework unittests is what you want, you should have a look > > at Ext.js adapters. Writing something similar for your unittests is > > easier then getting every framework to implement noConflict. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
