On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM, machineghost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Chainability: with this syntax you can chain functions do stuff > like: > someObject.update(updateObject1).update(updateObject2);
True, that _is_ something that can't be done with function-oriented syntax. Personally, I'm not that found of this "fluent interfaces" style; I think it works fine for simple cases, but lose it's punch when things get more complex. Plus it can get a bit unintuitive, when taken out of context. But I understand, that some people like it. The way jQuery's api works, should make it possible to provide some of these things without messing with built-in prototypes, I reckon? You could simply return wrapper objects, which have the methods available? I don't even remember if jQuery does this? On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM, machineghost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, come to think of it 5.counter() wouldn't even work (since 5 > is scalar, it doesn't inherit object.prototype methods). But > hopefully you get the idea. It works. 5 is a scalar, but it's automagically wrapped in an object, when used as such. -- troels --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to mochikit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
