[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On Jun 25, 7:50 am, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 24, 7:48 pm, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I personally prefer the following syntax: > > > var Animal = new Class({ > > ... > > > }); > > > var Cat = new Class(Animal, { > > ... > > > }); > > I abhor this s

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> Is Base an option for the naming of the parent class? Just to clarify, we're looking for how to name the equivalent of the super keyword in Ruby. (i.e. a reference to the method of the same name in the parent class). > "initialize" is reserved, why not "extends" too - allowing the "Class" > >

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "initialize" is reserved, why not "extends" too - allowing the "Class" > > > constructor to automatically extend the new class by just looking at > > > the content of "extends". > > That's an interesting idea, Just rewrote below to better m

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

Sorry, my OO is a bit slow. I was sorta meaning like this, to take your current example var Animal = new Class ({ initialize: function () { ... }, say: function () { alert('hi'); } }); var Cow = new Class({ Extend: Animal, Include: [Eatable, Breedable], initialize: .. say: f

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

Is Base an option for the naming of the parent class? Gareth On 6/25/07, Kjell Bublitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Parent: > Please don't overuse the $ sign. It should be used for utilities and > nothing else. Don't mix it in other areas, such as classes. > > Saying that, i still think it i

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

Parent: Please don't overuse the $ sign. It should be used for utilities and nothing else. Don't mix it in other areas, such as classes. Saying that, i still think it is good to introduce a "parent" property .. To make it more convenient, name it "parentClass". Easy to adopt and no dollar. Style

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> Yes, keep it lower-case and add an "s" so it reads better :) > Cow-Class "extends" Animal (and) "includes" Eatable, Breadable ... Remember that the idea is to distinguish them easily from "instance" methods, hence capitalizing or prepending a $ sign. --~--~-~--~~~

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes, keep it lower-case and add an "s" so it reads better :) > > Cow-Class "extends" Animal (and) "includes" Eatable, Breadable ... > > Remember that the idea is to distinguish them easily from "instance" > methods, hence capitalizing or

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> still a no-go for me. Classnames are capitialized, methods and vars > are lowercase. Its always been that way in all the "common" coding > guidlines .. > > But if you insist, what about an underscore instead? In JS that's usually implies that the property/method should be considered as private,

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On Jun 25, 4:41 am, "Gareth Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is Base an option for the naming of the parent class? I'd vote against it assiduously. It was my problem with Dean's original naming as well. In a deep class structure (Organism > Animal > Cat) it implies that the method being call

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > still a no-go for me. Classnames are capitialized, methods and vars > > are lowercase. Its always been that way in all the "common" coding > > guidlines .. > > > > But if you insist, what about an underscore instead? > > In JS that's usuall

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> I question whether "new Class" makes sense as an equivalent to > "Class.create." The "new" keyword connotes an instance in JavaScript > -- with its own scope and method chain. Not all things being *created* > are instances. That's a very valid point. It's unfotunately impossible to make a const

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

I really dislike the idea of downcasing these methods or prepending an underscore to them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core

[Prototype-core] Re: Template Class (documentation related)

Thanks for in-dept blurb on the differences between the JavaScript Object object and Array. I was trying to dumb it down but your explanation is better suited. As for "hacky" I was merely looking at the source and the variable named "object" that it expects as the first argument. Seems to me that

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

My proposal is very simple: var Animal = Class.create(instanceMethods, classMethods) Both arguments are hashes of methods and the second argument is optional. There are *no* magic properties in them (like include, extends, mixin) - every key-value pair becomes a regular method. The only "magic"

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> Subclassing: > > var Cat = Class.extend(Animal, instanceMethods, classMethods) > > This is much smarter than "Animal.extend(...)" because you may wish to have > a class method named "extend" on your classes. Agreed. though I think the Class.create({Extend: Animal, ... }) syntax suggested ea

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can't achieve this in JavaScript. Simply let it go. > Word. I like Mislav's approach to keep all the OOP functionality in Class. Really don't want anything cluttering up the methods or properties of my classes. No real opinion on the n

[Prototype-core] Inheritance: your thoughts?

Mislav Marohnic' wrote: > ... > > In conclusion, my philosophy is: > > * no magic properties except "initialize" > * keep the inheritance support code simple and short , otherwise > it makes no sense in having it > * leave room for users to make their own additions to the >

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Class.include(Animal, Enumerable) > > Class.alias(Animal, ...) > > How do you handle precedende handled between mixin and instance > methods ? Can you rephrase the question please? >- no dollar-signs and underscores because they

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subclassing: > > var Cat = Class.extend(Animal, instanceMethods, classMethods) > > This is much smarter than "Animal.extend(...)" because you may wish to have > a class method named "extend" on your classes. I also wish to have method name

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

I agree with everything Mislav said and would adopt that syntax in a heartbeat. My only concern is with the signature of Class.create and Class.extend. I feel like having instance methods and class methods in adjacent arguments can hurt the readability of the code. If you're skimming a file you m

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

I'm getting more and more convinced that extra magic such as classMethods and aliasMethods are unnecessary. You guys are making some great points. Keeping it simple is best. +1 for sup() ... very low risk of naming conflict, and no ugly symbol (I won't go a far as saying bad design, but it certai

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Adam McCrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For superclass and subclasses, what do folks think about prefixing them > with an underscore and making them "private", in the name of keeping the API > as simple as possible. Do you think you'll actually use them if they are > exposed? To b

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On Jun 25, 11:29 am, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd also like to throw in the idea that we need to prove the final > OO-design decisions with use cases. We can write animal-sounds code all > day long, but JavaScript is such a unique language, I think we ought to > prove the design

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

On 6/25/07, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps someone could volunteer to convert a piece of Scriptaculous or > Rico just for illustration purposes? Stuff in Prototype that benefits from inheritance: TimedObserver, PeriodicalExecuter, Form.Observer, Form.Element.Observer, For

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

Mislav Marohnic' wrote: > On 6/25/07, *Andrew Dupont* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > Perhaps someone could volunteer to convert a piece of Scriptaculous or > Rico just for illustration purposes? > > > Stuff in Prototype that benefits from inheritance: > > Tim

[Prototype-core] Re: Inheritance: your thoughts?

> > How do you handle precedende handledbetween mixin and instance > > methods ? > > Can you rephrase the question please? Sure (there was a "handled" too many in there): do instance method always have precende over mixins ones ? (from the API you suggest, I suppose mixins are included *after* c