dean at edwards.name
Wed Apr 5 19:21:50 EDT 2006
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this:
I wrote it to alleviate some of the problems you refer to below.
Paul Sowden wrote:
> OK, I'm sorry, but I'm reposting this in a new thread, please can you
> configure your mail client properly sjmiles, so that new emails are not
> sent with incorrect In-Reply-To and References headers.
> On 5 Apr 2006, at 23:51, Scott J. Miles wrote:
> At the Dojo meeting today (4/5/2006), dojo.inherits came up and we
> agreed to
> open up the discussion to the general contribs list.
> There are two (arguable) faults in the dojo.inherits implementation:
> 1. invoking super class methods is wordy and inconvenient.
> 2. there is no separation between constructor initialization and instance
> There is general agreement that we want to 'let JS be JS'.
> With regard to (2), my personal opinion is that JS doesn't have an axe to
> grind with respect to initialization, and there is nothing un-JS about
> supporting a systemic instance initialization function (that is to say, a
> standard way of specifying an instance initializer).
> Alex seemed right-away to have an idea of how tweak dojo.inherits to add
> such a feature (yay). We briefly discussed adding additional parameters to
> inherits vs. a key-word style signature. I prefer the former, but there was
> no general agreement.
> There was some talk about the term 'inherits' implying a non-JS idiom, but
> this is not a problem IMO. Any suggestions for new nomenclature are
> Re (1), nobody seemed to have a handle on how to make calling
> inherited/parent/base-class methods easier. Morris has developed his own
> inheritence system that may provide a solution.
> Thanks for listening. :)
> Scott J. Miles
> TurboAjax Group
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
More information about the dojo-contributors