On Mar 1, 2:29 am, Julian Turner <julesb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rob > > > > 1. Inheritance in JavaScript is implemented through chains of > > > prototype objects, ending ultimately at Object.prototype. > > > Strictly, it ends with the object referenced by the internal > > [[prototype]] property of Object.prototype, which is null. > > Sorry, yes I should have said that. > > > > > > If you > > > access a property (including a property referencing a function - i.e. > > > a method) on an object, and the object does not have that property as > > > its own, then the interpreter will see if the the object's prototype > > > has that property, > > > It uses the object referenced by an object's internal [[prototype]] > > property, which is (nearly always) a different object to that object's > > public prototype. > > Ahh, ok. I thought that the internal [[prototype]] was the same > object as the constructorfunction.prototype.
It is, but you said that property resolution was through the object's prototype, which it isn't. To be clear, an object's internal [[prototype]] references the public prototype of its constructor at the time it was constructed. It is possible to have an object's public prototype and [[prototype]] be the same object, but I can't think of a good reason to do that. -- Rob -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
