Of course, if you optimize it in this way to share a single constructor
function, you can't find the prototype of an object created with beget()
with o.constructor.prototype. Not sure how important that is, but there
is a downside to the optimization.
David
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> Dunno how many times that bedge has been optimized ;-)
>
> (function(){
> var F = function(){};
> jQuery.beget = function (proto, props) {
> F.prototype = proto;
> return props ? $.extend(new F, props) : new F;
> };
> })();
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Már Örlygsson <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi.
> If it hasn't been already considered (and rejected), I'd like to float
> the idea of adding support for prototypal inheritance into the jQuery
> core library.
>
> Something like this...
>
> jQuery.beget = function (proto, props) {
> var F = function () {};
> F.prototype = proto;
> var instance = new F();
> return props ? $.extend(instance, props) : instance;
> };
>
> ...becomes immensely powerful - especially during plugin development
> when allowing users to extend/override default options
>
> options = $.beget($.myplugin.defaults, options || {});
>
> ...and in various other common use cases - including $.fn.data()
> assignments, etc.
>
>
> I for one would love to see this feature added.
>
> --
> Már
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
