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: Jorge on 13 Jan 2010 03:50 On Jan 13, 9:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> IBTD. A user-defined `constructor' property of the prototype of an > >> object can be most useful. One basic principle of OOP is polymorphism, > >> and one method of achieving that is overloading; that is, a method is > >> defined on an object that is also defined on a superordinate object (in > >> class-based OOP: the superclass; in prototype-based OOP: the next object > >> in the prototype chain). (...) > > > The need to access a superclass in order to achieve polymorphism is > > ~non-inexistent, for in a weakly typed language such as JS a single > > method is usually enough -> there's no need to overload anything, nor > > access a superclass. > > A need that you are unable to perceive is still a need. I am using this > pattern to my advantage, with the exception... ....that it has nothing to do with polymorphism. > of the use of the word > "superclass" (as there are no classes). (loud applause) > > And, in any case, in order for a method "method" of an instance "this" > > to access its superclass' method "method", there's no need to use > > neither "this.__proto__", nor this.constructor, nor > > this.constructor.prototype, nor an "explicit constructor's > > identifier". > > Then, pray tell, how would you call it then Think again. (hint: you want to let the prototype chain do its thing) > (ignoring in your favor again > that there are no classes, and so no superclasses)? (loud applause #2) -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 13 Jan 2010 04:08 Jorge wrote: > On Jan 13, 9:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: >> Jorge wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> IBTD. A user-defined `constructor' property of the prototype of an >>>> object can be most useful. One basic principle of OOP is polymorphism, >>>> and one method of achieving that is overloading; that is, a method is >>>> defined on an object that is also defined on a superordinate object (in >>>> class-based OOP: the superclass; in prototype-based OOP: the next object >>>> in the prototype chain). (...) >>> The need to access a superclass in order to achieve polymorphism is >>> ~non-inexistent, for in a weakly typed language such as JS a single >>> method is usually enough -> there's no need to overload anything, nor >>> access a superclass. >> A need that you are unable to perceive is still a need. I am using this >> pattern to my advantage, with the exception... > > ...that it has nothing to do with polymorphism. > >> of the use of the word >> "superclass" (as there are no classes). > > (loud applause) > >>> And, in any case, in order for a method "method" of an instance "this" >>> to access its superclass' method "method", there's no need to use >>> neither "this.__proto__", nor this.constructor, nor >>> this.constructor.prototype, nor an "explicit constructor's >>> identifier". >> Then, pray tell, how would you call it then > > Think again. (hint: you want to let the prototype chain do its thing) > You are babbling again Jorge. This stuff is simple enough that you either know it or you don't. It is clear that you do not.
From: Jorge on 13 Jan 2010 04:19 On Jan 13, 10:08 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Jan 13, 9:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > > wrote: > >> Then, pray tell, how would you call it then > > > Think again. (hint: you want to let the prototype chain do its thing) > > You are babbling again Jorge. This stuff is simple enough that you > either know it or you don't. It is clear that you do not. (try to) think again. -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 13 Jan 2010 04:23 Jorge wrote: > On Jan 13, 10:08 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Jorge wrote: >>> On Jan 13, 9:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> >>> wrote: >>>> Then, pray tell, how would you call it then >>> Think again. (hint: you want to let the prototype chain do its thing) >> You are babbling again Jorge. This stuff is simple enough that you >> either know it or you don't. It is clear that you do not. > > (try to) think again. It's not meant to be a brain-teaser, Jorge. You haven't really said anything that makes sense. No matter how you call your "super-classes", it's not going to be a revelation here. ;)
From: Jorge on 13 Jan 2010 04:31
On Jan 13, 10:23 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (...) No matter how you call your "super-classes", > it's not going to be a revelation here. ;) That's true, as it's in one of Crockford's videos and in at least one msg in c.l.js. -- Jorge. |