Question about constructor property vs. instanceof
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: How to link CSS(s) already linked to parent frame into child iframe using javascript
Next: Error getElementbyClassName
From: Asen Bozhilov on 13 Jan 2010 14:36 Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > Yes, as variant it's also possible. Although, there's > `Object.prototype' augmentation and every time it's needed to specify > method name as a parameter to `this._super()'. That is only example. Actually when i was trip from work to home i think about that algorithm. However, that method for my is definitely better from Crockford, `uber' implementation which emulates lookup in prototype chain. > From the other hand, > it's possible to call different parent method by specifying different > name. Exactly. This is the other which i was wanted. Regards.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 13 Jan 2010 14:39 Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> So if this is not about winning or losing an argument (and I don't think >> you are honest to yourself here, try fool someone else): What matters >> the truth, what matters my admitting that it can be done if it is >> obviously an incredibly bad idea to be done? What is the *professional* >> advantage of knowing that a Bad Thing can be done? > > :D You'll be laughing but that's again demagogy No, it is not. Those are two very simple questions, and you failed to answer them. I'll answer them for you: It is merely your *ego* that wanted to be stroked, the *professional* value of your solution (or my admission) is exactly zero. > - which is mean, you're trying to change the main theme of the talk for > the reason that do not loose (or to win something, a little bit - in > other theme on which you're switching one). That is _not_ what demagogy means, stupid. Try an English dictionary for a change, you might actually learn something. > It-doesn't-matter-what-the-code-about! Gibberish. > Ok? ;) No, for you are still talking in gibberish. I'd rather you posted in your native language (Russian?) instead. > Good. And the main theme of the talk was - is it possible or > not to use `this._super()' with concrete and completely understandable > reason. And you have failed to provide it. That is, you provided the first part (it is possible) but not the second one (reason). And you neither want to admit that nor accept my arguments to that end. But thanks anyway. I pretty much expected you to be too much of a bragging coward to play by your own rules. You had a second chance, and you blew it. Go back to my killfile now, no longer wasting my time. PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: David Mark on 13 Jan 2010 14:45 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> So if this is not about winning or losing an argument (and I don't think >>> you are honest to yourself here, try fool someone else): What matters >>> the truth, what matters my admitting that it can be done if it is >>> obviously an incredibly bad idea to be done? What is the *professional* >>> advantage of knowing that a Bad Thing can be done? >> :D You'll be laughing but that's again demagogy > > No, it is not. Those are two very simple questions, and you failed to > answer them. I'll answer them for you: It is merely your *ego* that wanted > to be stroked, the *professional* value of your solution (or my admission) > is exactly zero. > >> - which is mean, you're trying to change the main theme of the talk for >> the reason that do not loose (or to win something, a little bit - in >> other theme on which you're switching one). > > That is _not_ what demagogy means, stupid. Try an English dictionary for a > change, you might actually learn something. > >> It-doesn't-matter-what-the-code-about! > > Gibberish. > >> Ok? ;) > > No, for you are still talking in gibberish. I'd rather you posted in your > native language (Russian?) instead. > >> Good. And the main theme of the talk was - is it possible or >> not to use `this._super()' with concrete and completely understandable >> reason. > > And you have failed to provide it. That is, you provided the first part > (it is possible) but not the second one (reason). And you neither want to > admit that nor accept my arguments to that end. > > But thanks anyway. I pretty much expected you to be too much of a bragging > coward to play by your own rules. You had a second chance, and you blew > it. Go back to my killfile now, no longer wasting my time. > Ah, it just doesn't work, even with a newsreader. They keep posting anyway. :(
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 13 Jan 2010 14:53 On Jan 13, 10:39pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> So if this is not about winning or losing an argument (and I don't think > >> you are honest to yourself here, try fool someone else): What matters > >> the truth, what matters my admitting that it can be done if it is > >> obviously an incredibly bad idea to be done? What is the *professional* > >> advantage of knowing that a Bad Thing can be done? > > > :D You'll be laughing but that's again demagogy > > No, it is not. Those are two very simple questions, and you failed to > answer them. I'll answer them for you: It is merely your *ego* that wanted > to be stroked, the *professional* value of your solution (or my admission) > is exactly zero. > > > - which is mean, you're trying to change the main theme of the talk for > > the reason that do not loose (or to win something, a little bit - in > > other theme on which you're switching one). > > That is _not_ what demagogy means, stupid. Try an English dictionary for a > change, you might actually learn something. > > > It-doesn't-matter-what-the-code-about! > > Gibberish. > > > Ok? ;) > > No, for you are still talking in gibberish. I'd rather you posted in your > native language (Russian?) instead. > > > Good. And the main theme of the talk was - is it possible or > > not to use `this._super()' with concrete and completely understandable > > reason. > > And you have failed to provide it. That is, you provided the first part > (it is possible) but not the second one (reason). And you neither want to > admit that nor accept my arguments to that end. > > But thanks anyway. I pretty much expected you to be too much of a bragging > coward to play by your own rules. You had a second chance, and you blew > it. Go back to my killfile now, no longer wasting my time. > I told you - no matter for me ;) Ok, if you're asking - take a cookie (it was the last one for you, David's already over ;)), and the talk is over with you too in force manner. > But thanks anyway. ðÏÖÁÌÕÊÓÔÁ. /ds
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 13 Jan 2010 14:55
On Jan 13, 10:36 pm, Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > > Yes, as variant it's also possible. Although, there's > > `Object.prototype' augmentation and every time it's needed to specify > > method name as a parameter to `this._super()'. > > That is only example. Actually when i was trip from work to home i > think about that algorithm. However, that method for my is definitely > better from Crockford, `uber' implementation which emulates lookup in > prototype chain. > > > From the other hand, > > it's possible to call different parent method by specifying different > > name. > > Exactly. This is the other which i was wanted. > Regards. Yeah, for own purpose it could be useful pattern. /ds |