Meh... I see how this is an issue where people are using
incorrectly, but I don't think the authors of Prototype should try changing
anything now to appease some (yes) poorly written legacy code. That would
force many people to have to $A() wrap their Arrays where they don't have to
right now, just because some legacy code can't be bothered to be fixed up :)
-- sorry Rob, -1 from me.

Anyway, I think the OP has more or less moved on (not joining in the fun
debate anymore). Ah, well, se la vie.

On 3/28/08, RobG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2:03 pm, "Ryan Gahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe, though, that these proposed solutions will be equally deemed
> by
> > the OP's company as "too much work"... otherwise they would just fix
> their
> > loops to not be loops, right?
> Not necessarily, only the OP can answer that.  It might be that adding
> a simple test to every loop is easier than changing the arrays
> to objects with an array property, which would require a change to
> every loop anyway.
> Or it might not.
> Perhaps the authors of Prototype.js can consider not extending
> Array.prototype and creating their own array object that is extended,
> so that $A() returns an extended array and the built-in constructor
> does not.
> --
> Rob
> >

Ryan Gahl
Manager, Senior Software Engineer
Nth Penguin, LLC
-- /
Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform
Inquire: 1-920-574-2218
LinkedIn Profile:

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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to