TJ...
I once woke up from a nap in the middle of a saturday and solved a silly
issue i was having with event bubbling/propagation... I had seen the
solution in code as the last thing before I woke up. I tried it... and it
worked. The point: never feel bad about waking up to code on the brain :)
Rick
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:38 AM, T.J. Crowder <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think you need "this.nifty.$super.call(this, foo);"
> >
> > You don't, although that also works.
>
> Ack! Sorry, too early in the morning, hadn't had enough coffee.
>
> That does *not* work, because you always refer to the bottommost
> subclass's nifty ("this.nifty" is always the bottommost function), so
> you end up endlessly recursing. Wow that's an easy trap to fall into.
>
> No, it's either use the function's name unadorned, or use
> arguments.callee and pay the performance penalty. Personally, I
> prefer using the function's name. :-)
>
> -- T.J. :-)
>
> On Sep 6, 8:48 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hi Allen,
> >
> > > I think you need "this.nifty.$super.call(this, foo);"
> >
> > You don't, although that also works. A named function's name is in
> > scope within the function:
> >
> > function foo(bar) {
> > alert(typeof foo); // Alerts "function"
> > }
> >
> > However, I was thinking about anonymous functions this morning while
> > waking up (pathetic, isn't it?) and realized that even if you don't
> > use a named function, you can avoid arguments.callee with exactly the
> > form you describe: this.nifty.$super.call(this, foo); I don't like
> > the repetition of "this", but if you don't have time to switch
> > everything over to named functions (I'm thinking of retrofitting
> > efforts), it's a reasonable first step, and I assume (haven't tested
> > it yet) still gets speed gains over arguments.callee.
> >
> > Will be posting a sample implementation (it's wonderfully simple, but
> > there are a couple of edge cases around dynamic updates of classes)
> > and tests ASAP, but I want to get some of the Prototype documentation
> > issues sorted out first (transferring the old doc to the new format
> > and updating), since that's more urgent.
> >
> > -- T.J. :-)
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2:46 pm, Allen Madsen <bla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > var Thingy = Class.create({
> > > > > nifty: function nifty(foo, bar) {
> > > > > nifty.$super.call(this, foo);
> > > > > }
> > > > > });
> >
> > > > > It just ignores the function name and complains that 'nifty' is not
> > > > > defined. This works:
> >
> > > I think you need "this.nifty.$super.call(this, foo);"
> >
> > > Allen Madsenhttp://www.allenmadsen.com
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
