Parent:
Please don't overuse the $ sign. It should be used for utilities and
nothing else. Don't mix it in other areas, such as classes.
Saying that, i still think it is good to introduce a "parent" property
.. To make it more convenient, name it "parentClass". Easy to adopt
and no dollar.
Style:
I prefer the style Tobie Langel posted, because "Class.create" means
the same as "new Class", so saying "Class.create" is a bit verbose for
that matter. "new" explains it all.
How about this?
var Animal = new Class({
initialize: ..
});
var Cat = new Class({
extends: [Animal],
initialize: ..
});
"initialize" is reserved, why not "extends" too - allowing the "Class"
constructor to automatically extend the new class by just looking at
the content of "extends".
I think this is pretty straight forward, instead of using a new method
for everything.. (create, add, extend)
It should work "by definition".
On 6/25/07, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 25, 7:50 am, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 7:48 pm, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I personally prefer the following syntax:
> >
> > > var Animal = new Class({
> > > ...
> >
> > > });
> >
> > > var Cat = new Class(Animal, {
> > > ...
> >
> > > });
> >
> > I abhor this syntax. I wish I could put it any more mildly.
> >
> > In languages with class-based inheritance, class creation and class
> > instantiation are two separate concepts. Defining a class is done
> > within a control structure. I can think of nothing more confusing than
> > instantiating Class to create your class, then instantiating your
> > class to create an instance of the class you just instantiated with
> > Class.
>
> Yes, but JavaScript is different. The class is really a (function)
> object in JavaScript - it isn't common, but this makes JavaScript a
> very flexible language. We can't compare JavaScript in everything to
> other OO languages.
> This approach (using new) is very interesting and innovative for
> me :-)
> But other solutions are pretty too :-)
>
> > > Also, I think that this.sup or this.$super would be safer than using
> > > this.parent, which, in the realm of DOM scripting might be used pretty
> > > often inside classes already.
> >
> > "this.$super" is fine with me
>
> "parent" is very popular name for an attribute. Please don't use it.
> The most natural, IMHO, seems to treat all new attributes and methods
> added by prototype as "magic" and prefix them with anything (as
> prototype uses the dollar sign ($) frequently for added stuff, it
> would be most natural choice again).
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
