John,
Thanks for pulling together all the various versions of Object.extend. It's
useful to have them in one place.
There are a couple of things you mentioned that I wanted to clarify.
Neither Object.create nor Object.clone was not intended to be a directly
replacement for Object.extend.
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Object.create's heritage is Doug Crockford's beget function and its primary
purpose is to provide a more direct way to create an object with an
explicitly specified prototype.
I think the name Object.createHeir would clarify its use better.
--
Ingvar von Schoultz
2008/7/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Collectively,
getOwnProperty,defineProperties/defineProperty,getOwnPropertyNames,getPrototypeOf
are intended to provide all the mechanisms necessary to build any of these
variants to extent or any other model of property manipulation using
Object.getProperties and Object.getOwnProperties were part of the early design
of thiss set of functions. See for example, the June 24 draft at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
I proposed removing them, because I felt that they were starting to impinge
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
We ultimately concluded that the best way to think about what we
are currently provide is that it is a set of primitive mechanisms
that could be used to build higher level reflection facilities. If
we had a strong use case we could
2008/7/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We ultimately concluded that the best way to think about what we are
currently provide is that it is a set of primitive mechanisms that could be
used to build higher level reflection facilities. If we had a strong use case
we could reintroduce
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Thanks for pulling together all the various versions of Object.extend.
Not all.
It's useful to have them in one place.
There are a couple of things you mentioned that I wanted to clarify.
Neither
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Resig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. YAHOO.lang.extend uses prototypal inheritance.
YAHOO.lang.extend is similar in name only - YAHOO.lang.augmentObject is the
one that's actually similar to the functionality used by other code bases.
You're prev
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
[snip]
1) It seems like Object.clone as you have described it is not suitable
for the mixin type use case where an object gets properties/methods
from two
You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
Object.create.
No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method to be
introduced in ES3.1. Mozilla has offered a proposal and is looking to implement
it in SpiderMonkey. I provided examples of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Resig
No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method
to be introduced in ES3.1. Mozilla has offered a proposal and is
looking to implement it in SpiderMonkey.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
...
You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
Object.create. Object.create, with only one argument, is the same as
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:31 AM
...
Neither Object.create nor Object.clone was not intended to be a
directly replacement for Object.extend.
Make that:
Neither Object.create or Object.clone were intended
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, John Resig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
Object.create.
No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method to be
introduced in ES3.1.
The title of the thread is object static
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
...
You're prev response seems to have come from the
We've been down this road before, and the arguments you present have been
hashed out over years. This approach doesn't work. Read the archives of the
ES4 group.
The problem is that you then get a plethora of ways to define things:
var
const
function
type
namespace
let
let const
let function
16 matches
Mail list logo
