On Oct 17, 3:44 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, that's just a poor wording on our side : /
> By "preserve scope it would have anyway" it was probably meant that a
> function is not explicitly "bound" to any object.

> The way you understood binding in this case is actually pretty
> intuitive to many people.

It's intuitive because it's like closures work. Now I have doubts if
my other Enumerable methods behave as I intended them to. What do
others think?

I think you should use simple example in like mine in API Docs to
illustrate it's not intuitive.

I'm sad :(
Tomasz Kalkosiński

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to