"Adding checks into the library would add overhead" Did you make some performance tests ?
If it's so BAD why Douglas Crockford in his book[1] has no problem with object.prototype augmentation ? For example, take a look : http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html He says : "The problem with Object.prototype.begetObject is that it trips up incompetent programs[..]" [1] http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/ /Greg On Jul 22, 2:37 pm, Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Playing around with the prototypes of built in objects is considered a > REALLY BAD THING for exactly the reasons you've encountered. Most > javascript, not just jQuery, makes assumptions about the built in > Javascript objects, assumptions that get invalidated when the object's > prototype has been mucked around with. Adding checks into the library > would add overhead, something that could have enormous impact on > complex web apps. > > On Jul 22, 11:36 am, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > I want to use the code from this page > > :http://www.coolpage.com/developer/javascript/Correct%20OOP%20for%20Ja... > > to enable true inheritance with JavaScript ... but sadly JQuery > > doesn't support a such possibility.. Why ? > > > If you take care by using "hasOwnProperty()" when you iterate to an > > object you will never reach my added functions. Like that : > > for(var m in o) { > > if (m.hasOwnProperty()) { > > // use of m.. > > } > > > } > > > Or better with a such augmentation ;o) : > > Object.prototype.each = function(f) { > > for (var k in this) { > > if (this.hasOwnProperty(k)) { > > f(k, this[k]); > > } > > } > > > }; > > > Is there an explanation of this limitation ? > > > TIA > > /Greg
