Sure. Handling namespacing inside of the global scope is one issue,
and it's pretty simple to deal with... but what about extended

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.



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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to