Hi Derrell, Am 18.01.2009 um 22:09 schrieb Derrell Lipman:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Andreas Junghans > <andreas.jungh...@stz-ida.de > > wrote: > >> > Your example (sparse-array) would work just as well with "new >> > Object()" >> >> Except for the missing length property >> > > Oooh, bad example. The length of a sparse array is almost > meaningless. It doesn't give you the number of elements in the > sparse array. Instead it gives you one more than the maximum index > value. (In other words, a sparse array isn't actually sparse as far > as the length is concerned.) That length value for a sparse array is > not very useful typically. Better to use an Object and keep track of > the length one's self. All right, all right, I take it back :-) Maybe there really isn't a good usecase for arrays combined with "for ... in" iteration. That doesn't change the fact that manipulating native object prototypes can lead to unexpected results and should be avoided. Your suggestion to drop these methods in qooxdoo 0.9 is good. I'm usually against incompatible API changes, but in this case it avoids unexpected (or even buggy) behaviour, and I suspect that only a few people actually use these methods outside the core framework classes. Regards, Andreas J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
