| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> only the first function works
<0> the first alert
<0> can anybody explain me why?
<0> http://dumb.ro/problem.txt
<1> VaranG|aN: yes, a bit
<2> do you find any problems with FireFox.. such as ASP.NET components not working properly while using FireFox ?
<2> FireFox Version 1.5
<1> never test under 1.5, but i don't have any problem with <1.5
<0> is this reffering to the scope from where the method was called?
<1> sk8ing: you don't have this.something. something is a private var in this case
<0> and if it would be this.something = 'lala'l
<0> it would have been this.something?
<1> that is public var
<0> I know that's a public var, but I don't think that the method cares about that
<0> cuz it's a member method so it has access to everything inside the object
<1> if you have problem. it means it care
<1> since i never mess up my var name liek that, i never run into those problem
<0> that's messing up?
<1> having both something and this.something
<0> I'm not having both
<0> I'm having only a private one
<0> and I'm stuned by the fact that this.something is undefined
<1> it is perfectly make sense
<0> no, it's not. this is a reference to the current object since that's a method, it's not in the definition space/constructor
<0> this means that you can define public properties from a method
<1> but you declare it as private
<0> I mean if you have this.myMethod = function() { this.aaaa = 'sdafsd'; }
<0> aaaa will become a public property
<0> maybe I'm just not used to this kind of OO approach
<0> but it seems wrong in so many ways
<1> there is no right or wrong, every language is different, as long as your OO knowledge is strong, you won't have problem with the syntax
<1> I can write OO like stuff in flash5
<0> never played with flash
<0> the thing is that a member method has to have access to all the private and public properties, externaly or internaly
<0> this would be an external pointer to the object
<0> that's why it's undefined, cuz the function sees it's own object externaly
<0> with external access right
<0> wich is wrong
<1> to make things more clear, there is no private var in js, it is a local scope var, it kind of behave like a private var
<0> and what is this.xx?
<0> is still local scope
<1> no. that is public property
<0> :/
<0> local scope, global scope. public, private
<0> public properties are still in local scope
<1> local scope to the object instance
<0> yes
<0> what I'm saying is that "this" referrenced from a member function should be give public access to all it's properties/methods
<0> since the method itself is a member of the object
<1> that is not what js provide you
<0> I can see that
<0> it makes good design impossible
<1> ....
<0> since you can't have member functions that play with objects of the same type
<1> you asking for bad thing, I don't want to be bound by type now
<0> for example function obj1() { var x = 1; this.y = x; this.add(lala) { x += lala.x; } } a = new obj1; b = new obj2; a.add(b);
<0> this is impossible to do
<0> sorry b = new obj1
<1> BAD
<0> no
<0> it's not bad
<1> you asking public method to access another object private var directly
<0> that's how all real languages are managing it
<1> no
<0> no
<0> it's a member method
<0> it doesn't matter that it's public or private
<1> lala.y
<0> what's with it?
<1> it is a bad design from the begining
<0> this is good design
<0> bad design is as it is right now
<0> cuz you are forced to define x as public
<1> you need to have better grip on public and private , isolation etc
<0> I think I know a lot about OO
<1> your add method is trying to read lala's private x , how's good it is?
<0> lala is of the same type
<0> if it's not of the same type it should throw an error
<1> it doesn't matter
<0> of course it does
<1> bad is bad
<0> that's how it's done in most languages
<0> else you wouldn't be able to have a lot of stuff
<1> It doesn't mean it is good, I never do that myself
<0> of course it's good
<0> else you wouldn't have any private property
<0> everything would be public
<0> so you could be able to do obj_instance1 = obj_instance2;
<0> another thing that you can't do in js
<3> what now?
<3> Are we talking about anything interesting?
<1> not interesting at all :D
<0> ...
<3> goodie, I'm was too lazy to read up
<0> I'm talking about how screwed up the OO in js is
<1> [13:39] <0> for example function obj1() { var x = 1; this.y = x; this.add(lala) { x += lala.x; } } a = new obj1; b = new obj2; a.add(b);
<0> b = new obj1;
<1> he whining about that and think it is a good design
<0> ht311: omg
<0> man stop saying it's bad design
<0> I'll show you 1000000000 source files that will show you that it's good design
<0> that's how objects are ment to be used
<3> What does that have to do with anything!?
<1> you need to can fb comment , my comment stay [13:44] <1> your add method is trying to read lala's private x , how's good it is?
<1> even it is same type, i won't do it like that
<3> well, beeing the same 'type' you should be able too.
<0> and I've said: the type is the same
<0> thank you fatbrain
<3> sk8ing: doesn't mean I think you should in JS.
<1> you able to, but should you do it
<0> ht311: yeah, that's how you copy an object
<0> or do operations
<0> + operator
<0> - operator
<3> eh, not really.
<1> not really needed, in .net, you don't do it liek that
<0> not allweays
<1> so, js is fine as is
<3> sk8ing: that operator example you just wrote is not js, that would be something one would exect in C++.
<0> fatbrain, I know, I was pointing out that this limitation in js makes stuff like that impossible
<3> And JavaScript is not C++.
<3> Tho some would like the JS-OOP to be more of a *real* OOP language.
<0> that's why there is no default copy constructor
<3> It's not a limitation.
<0> and that's why you can't build a real one
<1> ......
<3> var a = 23; b = a;
<3> na, bad example :P
<0> in fact... you can do a copy constructor
<0> :P
<3> Not in JavaScript.
<0> you'll need two functions
<1> nothting stoping you to write a.clone(b);
<0> nah
<0> a = b.clone();
<3> sk8ing: Still, that's not a copy *constructor*
<0> I know
<0> :P
<0> but it's a clone
<0> a real one
<1> there are languages that you can't write operator
<3> It's not a *real* clone.
<3> var a = new foo(); var b = a.clone(); ***ert(b instanceof foo); would fail.
<0> uhm of course it is: func x() { var x = 0; this.y = 1; this.clone() { ***ign(x,y); } ***ign(a,b) { x = a; y = b; } }
<0> there you go
<3> well, I just invalidated that.
<3> and wtf is y in your example?
<3> ***ign(x,y) <-
Return to
#javascript
or
Go to some related
logs:
karawetta
#mysql
#java
#apache
#javascript
how to install fluxbox on centos
Babylon6+problem
synapsis poc
#javascript
#AllNiteCafe
|
|