I personally worry more about relying on non-standard behavior (i.e.
function decompilation)
Say what?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Gahl ryan.g...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally worry more about relying on non-standard behavior (i.e.
function decompilation)
Say what?
Oh, do you mean how the $super mechanism enumerates the method names and
whatnot?
Yea, that's what I meant (I read the code when it was released and knew it
was something weird like that).
I agree, 'tis a hack...
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, kangax kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:24 pm, Ryan Gahl ryan.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM,
One of the downsides of the current $super-based implementations is
that it's ridiculously complicated to pass the whole set of arguments
to the parent's method (the equivalent of calling super without
passing any arguments in ruby):
var Child = Class.create(Parent, {
doStuff: function($super)
FWIW $super is *not* gone.
_I_ happen not to like it.
On Jan 5, 2:44 am, kangax kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 7:12 pm, Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, you'd have to handle this like so with your
proposed implementation:
var Child =
