> It's kind of understandable why context would
> behave the way scoping (or rather identifier resolution) works.
Oh, completely. It's one of the big, big adjustments people like me
have to make coming to JavaScript from C++, Java, C#, etc. All I
meant was, having made that adjustment (er, mostly) and with my
JavaScript hat on, I wasn't surprised to have the context of each()'s
iterators default to the global object, because that's what I'm used
to *in JavaScript*. If I were coding in Java, it would be very
surprising indeed.
No, the whole question of whether the behavior of JavaScript's 'this'
"pseudo-parameter" (as Crockford calls it) is surprising is a
different thing entirely. *I* was certainly surprised by it at first,
I don't mind saying. ;-)
-- T.J. :-)
On Oct 17, 8:33 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:08 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > It's intuitive because it's like closures work.
>
> > Not really, or at least, not if I understand what you mean. This
> > code, for instance:
>
> > var Thingy = Class.create({
>
> > initialize: function(name)
> > {
> > this.name = name;
> > },
>
> > showName: function()
> > {
> > alert("this.name = " + this.name);
> > },
>
> > doSomething: function()
> > {
> > (function(){
> > alert("this.name = " + this.name);
> > })();
> > }
>
> > });
>
> > If I call it like this:
>
> > var t;
> > t = new Thingy('Fred');
> > t.showName();
> > t.doSomething();
>
> > ...first alerts "this.name = Fred" (from showName) and then "this.name
> > = " (from doSomething). The closure inside doSomething() does not
> > inherit "this" from the scope in which it's called, so "this" is
> > "window" within it. Like all other functions, "this" is determined by
> > *how* it's called, not where.
>
> > Granted closures do inherit other aspects of context (in-scope vars
> > and such), so if that's what you mean, I take your point. But I think
> > that's a bit apples and oranges.
>
> Well, some people do indeed expect *context* to behave as *scope*.
> Some people also confuse these two or believe that one depends on
> another in some way : / It's kind of understandable why context would
> behave the way scoping (or rather identifier resolution) works. Maybe,
> if context was set to the caller's one, we wouldn't have all this
> binding mess we have now.
>
> IIRC, Crockford was one of the first people to "complain" about
> context semantics (proposing something along the lines of what Tomasz
> expected)
>
>
>
> > > I think you should use simple example in like mine in API Docs to
> > > illustrate it's not intuitive.
>
> > Just my two pennies worth, but it worked the way *I* expected it to.
> > I haven't been using Prototype that long and I remember not being
> > surprised by this, because it worked the way functions in general
> > work: I didn't explicitly supply a context, and it got the global
> > object. So I found it "intuitive" and would be surprised if it were
> > something else without me telling it to be. Just FWIW.
> > --
> > T.J. Crowder
> > tj / crowder software / com
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> kangax
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
