Just to keep things concrete, here's my take on how the syntax could be implemented:
http://pastie.textmate.org/90947 This way, inheritance will still work for methods added to 'this' inside the closure, and Class.extend can be used elsewhere in the library. Questions: * Can this feature be left to third parties with special needs? To be honest, yes, it can: http://pastie.textmate.org/90951 * Could this syntax simplify Prototype's own implementation (i.e., is Prototype itself a third party with a special need :)? I think so, and in ways that might not be obvious; e.g., stuff like this: http://pastie.textmate.org/90953 I haven't even begun to do an exhaustive audit, but I would bet this syntax allows an improvement almost anywhere an underscored property is used. On a quick glance-through, Element._attributeTranslations jumped out at me. * [Your burning question here]? I'm glad you asked! Them's my thoughts. Ben On Aug 24, 3:54 am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The alternate syntax suggested by Ben Newman and supported by Alex is > demonstrated in these two > pastes:http://pastie.caboo.se/90313(Ben)http://pastie.textmate.org/90584(Alex) > > The syntax is slightly more verbose than what we have in 1.6.0, but with it > it's dead easy to have true privacy for variables and methods. As Alex shows > in the last thread, it's also simple to implement in just few lines of code. > > I would like to hear how do the others feel about this syntax. Core members: > would we want to support this in the framework? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
