I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
If a person doesn't know what Class.create does with an object (passed
to it), it's their problem ; )
Bending language (and clogging performance) to meet inept programmers
expectations doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.
Adapting a "private members" pattern, on the other hand, is a decision
every person/team has to decide for itself (as there are clear pros/
cons in each situation).
-- kangax
On Jul 2, 5:48 pm, "Ryan Gahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more little illustration:
>
> var blah = Class.create({
> someArray: [],
> initialize: function() {}
>
> });
>
> var foo1 = new blah();
> var foo2 = new blah();
> foo1.someArray.push("blahblah");
> alert(foo2.someArray.length); //alerts 1, most people new to js will expect
> 0
>
> How many times has this issue been posted about here? People write something
> like this, and expect the array to be unique for both instances, when in
> fact it's shared (also known as static)... when in fact they really wanted:
>
> var blah = Class.create({
> initialize: function() {
> this.someArray = [];
>
> }
> });
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
