;t inherit from DynImage
these
called need to be explicit.
Hope it helps,
Ray
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Colin
Thompson
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM
To: Dynapi-Help
Subject: [Dynapi-Help] correct format of widgets
Just a simple
) function. Since it doesn't inherit from DynImage these
called need to be explicit.
Hope it helps,
Ray
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Colin
Thompson
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM
To: Dynapi-Help
Subject: [Dynapi-Help] co
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Digital
Strider
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 2:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Help] correct format of widgets
It's a matter of syntax, they both work fine. Even the early Pascal widgets
used the sy
riginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Colin
Thompson
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM
To: Dynapi-Help
Subject: [Dynapi-Help] correct format of widgets
Just a simple question,
I've noticed that the tutorials by Pascal use this format:
There is absolutely no difference. The whole point of these two lines is
creating a true new DynLAyer instance and execute its initialization code for
each instantiated widget. Since we have prototyped inheritance, if that was not
done we would have all instances of widget sharing properties.
En/
Just a simple question,
I've noticed that the tutorials by Pascal use this format:
function widget(id,x,y,w,h) {
this.superClass=DynLayer
this.superClass(id,x,y,w,h)
yet all the 'core' widgets use this.DynLayer. What is the difference between
the 2? is th
