On 12/4/06, RobG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The example of for..in is just the obvious case, the underlying issue > is that once you extend a built-in object, it is no longer available in > its original form. Anyone trying to create their own subclass, for > whatever reason, is stuck with the extended object. They have a choice > of accommodating the extensions or not using the library.
You seem to have missed their argument. It is laid out pretty clearly in the above posts and goes something like this: """ The only repeated problem reported by prototype.js users is for...in loops on Array. You can make arguments as to why a particular prototype.js design decision is bad, but we don't hear about it causing problems. When it becomes a problem, we'll fix it. Until then, practicality beats purity. """ Unless you have an actual case where prototype is causing a problem, reprimanding them on their design decisions is basically trolling. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
