On Oct 17, 3:44 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, that's just a poor wording on our side : / > By "preserve scope it would have anyway" it was probably meant that a > function is not explicitly "bound" to any object.
> The way you understood binding in this case is actually pretty > intuitive to many people. It's intuitive because it's like closures work. Now I have doubts if my other Enumerable methods behave as I intended them to. What do others think? I think you should use simple example in like mine in API Docs to illustrate it's not intuitive. I'm sad :( Tomasz Kalkosiński --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@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-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
