Hi,
`Object` is deep in the core of JavaScript, not just Prototype.
You can add static functions to `Object` fairly safely provided you
use obscure names:
Object.myReallyObscureMethodName = function() {
// ....
};
...but as you mentioned, you will be susceptible to naming conflicts.
What you must **never** do is add to `Object.prototype`:
// DON'T DO THIS
Object.prototype.myReallyObscureMethodName = function() {
// ....
};
If you do that (the way it's shown above), then just about every
`for..in` loop in code running alongside yours will fail, because the
above adds an enumerable `myReallyObscureMethodName` property to *all
objects*:
var name;
for (name in {}) {
alert(name); // This gets reached, and alerts
"myReallyObscureMethodName"
}
...and that's just a Bad Thing(tm). (As of ECMAScript 5th edition,
it's *possible* to add non-enumerable properties to `Object.prototype`
using special syntax, but I still wouldn't do it.)
HTH,
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Engineer
tj / crowder software / com
www / crowder software / com
On Dec 11, 12:07 am, Luke <kickingje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is it ok to extend Object (http://api.prototypejs.org/language/Object/
> ) with a custom function (I mean regarding name-conflicts, I want to
> name my function extendWrapped)? Or is it a Class that should better
> not be touched for some reason? It seems to be pretty deep in the core
> of Prototype, so I'm kinda cautious..
>
> Thanks
> Lukas
--
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-scriptacul...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
