That returns true.
package {
import flash.display.*;
public class Test2 extends Sprite {
public function Test2 () {
var test:top = new middle();
trace (test.options === test['constructor'].prototype.options);
}
}
}
dynamic class top {
prototype.options = {};
}
As an experiment I tried declaring the variable "test" to be of type
"middle", and that gives
a compilation error
var test:middle = new middle();
/Users/hqm/openlaszlo/devildog/WEB-INF/lps/lfc/kernel/swf9/Test2.as(6): col:
26 Error: Access of possibly undefined property options through a reference
with static type Test2.as$23:middle.
trace (test.options === test['constructor'].prototype.options);
^
badtzmaru:swf9 hqm$
class middle extends top {}
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you see what this test case does:
>
> dynamic class top {
> prototype.options = {};
> }
>
> class middle extends top {}
>
> var test = new middle;
>
> test.options === test['constructor'].prototype.options;
>
> I think the syntax will be slightly different in JS2, but it will
> continue to work. I think for now this will be the best way to
> implement options, unless we find that making our classes all dynamic
> kills performance.
>
>
>
>
> On 2008-03-20, at 15:47 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote:
> > I'm not sure what this['constructor'].prototype.options will return in
> > swf9. I can try it with a small test case,
> > but maybe is there a way to do this
> > that doesn't need to use .prototype?
> >
> > function $lzc$set_options(hash) {
> > // Ensure you have your own private options dictionary, not the one
> > // inherited from your class, nor the default empty one inherited
> > // from LzNode!
> > if (this.options === this['constructor'].prototype.options) {
> > this.options = new LzInheritedHash(this.options);
> > }
> > for (var key in hash) {
> > this.options[ key ] = hash[key];
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henry Minsky
> > Software Architect
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
