On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM, ydaniv <maggotf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks guys for the input! > > @Jake: > It's evil to extend Object.prototype with an enumerable property. > here "_prototype_" is non-configurable because the logic here depends > on it. If you choose to use this then you'd want it to be non- > configurable. > But perhaps you're right and I could add "configurable: true", seems > like a good idea. > I didn't really explain why I would want it configurable. I may want to do this var old_prototype_ = Object.prototype._prototype_; delete Object.prototype._prototype_; // define a new (better) _prototype_ > > The "_asDescriptor" function is private and quite straight-forward. > The use of the letters e, p &r is a physical joke, and I didn't think > that following a single-line function would be too hard to follow. > Anyhow, I guess I'll change those to something more meaningful. > > I'm sorry that you see the supr function as magic, cause actually it > follows the straight forward logic of getting an overridden property > in a prototype chain: > You find the object in the chain that actually defines this property > and then get this property again from its parent. > Since JS don't protect you from possible errors you need to go through > some hoops. > As for super shouldn't it just be a shorthand for Object.getPrototypeOf(this) ? do we need more magic then that? > > What are Object.make & Object.createSimple? > And yes, Create is very thin and light, that was the objective here. > > I have an implementation of [object.make]( https://github.com/Raynos/pd#pd.make) I forgot to reference the idea of it. > > @Alexander: > As I mentioned in the docs, if you name each method you're using supr > inside and not in strict mode then you can loose the "name" param. > > Personally I don't like Resig's this._super because I find it very > obtrusive, it bloats your code, and frankly it uses magic like using > regex on the function.toString(). > > If you consider using a function's name inside it as breaking the DRY > principle then I guess that's your opinion. In python, you call a > super function like this: > class C(B): > def method(self, arg): > super(C, self).method(arg) > > You could say I took some inspiration from that. > Besides that, putting a name of a different property allows you to > call a different overridden property, which is not RY at all. > > Thanks! > ~Y > > > On Oct 24, 1:01 pm, "Fyodorov "bga" Alexander" > <bga.em...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ydaniv: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I saw some discussions about OO & inheritance in JS so thought I might > > > share a small Gist I've contrived: > > > > >https://gist.github.com/1074335 > > > > > It's ES5 only and implements a simple wrap for the Object.create > > > mechanism and a "super" property getter in a more unobtrusive way. > > > > > It's OS and will appreciate any feedback. > > > > > Thanks, > > > ~Y > > > > this._super() is better then your method because you force me > > duplicate method name, its not DRY > > -- > 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 > -- 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
