On Mar 9, 9:50 am, webbear1000 <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm interested in your opinions on how I'm handling getters and
> setters in classes. Can you see any problems with my approach and what
> trouble might I be getting myself into?
>
> The huge body of my programming work has been with ASP.NET in VB and
> C#. So I'm used to classic OOP rather than prototype inheritance. With
> that in mind, I'm trying to semi-replicate getters and setters
> thus ...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> this.property = function(value){
> if(arguments.length == 0){
> return localVariable;
> }else{
> localVariable = value;
> }}
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> So if no arguments are passed, the function becomes a getter or a
> setter if there are arguments.
>
> What do you think?
I don't see how prototypal inheritance would not allow you to
implement property accessors : )
It's easy to do so with either plain javascript:
function Person(name) {
this.setName(name);
}
Person.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
Person.prototype.setName = function(name) {
this.name = name;
}
or using abstraction that Prototype.js provides:
var Person = Class.create({
initialize: function(name) {
this.setName(name);
},
getName: function() {
return this.name;
},
setName: function(name) {
this.name = name;
}
});
I'm not a fan of one-method-accessor API. I like `getXXX`, `setXXX`
notation more, as it seems to be more descriptive and less error-
prone. You are obviously free to use whichever you thinks suits
better.
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
