On Dec 1, 9:00 pm, "Dirceu Barquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> to call the widget:
> $('').attr({id:'the_widget'}).mywidget(fff:function(){});
I must be missing something :((. I have tried to reduce my code to the
next simple example.
Notice I want to override the method A.fff in B.init to
to call the widget:
$('').attr({id:'the_widget'}).mywidget(fff:function(){});
Dirceu
2008/12/1 DiTieM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Maybe what I am pretending to do is something that JQuery wants to
> avoid, but I am very frustrated with the following idea. Let's image
> we have a simple "class":
>
>
"Adding checks into the library would add overhead"
Did you make some performance tests ?
If it's so BAD why Douglas Crockford in his book[1] has no problem
with object.prototype augmentation ?
For example, take a look : http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html
He says : "The problem with
> If it's so BAD why Douglas Crockford in his book[1] has no
> problem with object.prototype augmentation ?
>
> For example, take a look :
> http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html
> He says : "The problem with Object.prototype.begetObject is
> that it trips up incompetent programs[..]
Thanks for your reply. Some parts of my reply are below in you text.
If you want to iterate over the members of an object you have to use
'hasOwnProperty' as showed at the first post. JavaScript iterate over
all the prototypes members if you do anything. Why a library can't
assume that object.pro
Greg, you can't extend Object.prototype. It will break more than just
jQuery. As you noted, there is a workaround, but it requres code to be added
to every for loop, which has a performance impact.
Instead, simply revise the Object.prototype.Inherits function from that page
so it does not need to
6 matches
Mail list logo
