Hi Richard,
thanks for your reply. With
> The return is something I've been using since May 2008 with all the
> releases and updates since then.
Do you mean you have used the native prototype-return, or did you
alter it, and it still worked?
On Dec 16, 6:04 pm, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 16:36, Luke <kickingje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > if you define a Class like
>
> > ----------------------------------
> > var TestClass = Class.create({
> > initialize: function(element) {
> > element = $(element);
> > this.doFunkyStuffWithElement(element)
> > return element;
> > },
> > doFunkyStuffWithElement: function(element) { log("funky stuff
> > here") }
> > });
> > ----------------------------------
>
> > and you instantiate that Class
>
> > var myObject = new TestClass();
>
> > is there a way I can change it so (while namespacing my Class-Code so
> > Prototype's Class will remain untouched) that instantiation of that
> > class will return something different than what Prototype returns (in
> > my case a DOM-Object that has been extended with custom Methods)?
>
> > ---
> > Why I want to do this: I'm working on a site where you can create
> > really simple webpages by adding, editing, and removing elements on
> > your page. To structure my code I make use of prototype's dom-
> > extending nature and its way of class-inheritance:
> > There is a base class for elements on the page which has methods for
> > editing and removing that object and so on. I subclass this base-class
> > for specific elements where I implement the specific editing/removing/
> > whatever-code. Now to map my functionality to the elements on the
> > page, I extend the DOM-Elements which you can edit/etc with the
> > methods and properties of the class, leaving out unnecessary
> > constructors etc.
>
> > But it is always a little annoying to extend an object with a class,
> > and then fetch that object again to work with it:
>
> > ----------------------------------
> > new EditablePicture($('the_element_I_extend'));
> > var my_element = $('the_element_I_extend');
> > my_element.do_something();
> > ----------------------------------
>
> > it would be nice to be able to do something like this:
>
> > ----------------------------------
> > var my_element = new EditablePicture($('the_element_I_extend'));
> > my_element.do_something();
> > ----------------------------------
>
> > Is that kind of stuff even possible?
>
> > Thank you
> > 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
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
>
> Yep - I think so. Look at around line 80 of prototype.js
>
> function klass() {
> return this.initialize.apply(this, arguments);
> }
>
> The return is something I've been using since May 2008 with all the
> releases and updates since then.
>
> I've not had any issues with my code or with scripty with it.
>
> --
> Richard Quadling
> Twitter : EE : Zend
> @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY
--
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.
