>
> If we recast our example to use a named function for the handler:
>
> function init() {
> var container;
>
> container = $('container');
> hookUpHideables(container);
> container.show();
>
> function hookUpHideables(p) {
> p.select('.hideable').invoke('observe', 'click', hideableClick);
> }
> }
>
> function hideableClick(evt) {
> this.hide();
> }
>
> ...no closures have outstanding references at the end of init(), and
> the chain is eligible for GC.
>
That's true, but your example does not use .bind(), therefore I don't
really see how it pertains to the discussion. When you .bind(), you are
passing the the function to bind, along with it's context and all that goes
with that... so I really can't see how it's any better than inlining, except
just on a pure convenience level. Keep in mind we're talking about cases
where you need to "correct" the scope of the bound function so that "this"
is your class's object instance. Your example here is a completely different
scenario where the developer doesn't care that "this" is the element itself.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
