Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 10:46 On Jan 3, 10:42 am, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 6:40 am, Ryan Chan <ryanchan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Have read Douglas Crockfore's JavaScript The Good Parts, it recommend > > Augmenting Types, e.g. > > > Function.prototype.method = function(name, func) { > > this.prototype[name] = func; > > return this; > > > }; > > > String.method('trim', function() { > > return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, ''); > > > }); > > > Is this a good thing in your opinion? > > The -handy- ability to -miraculously- extend types on the fly -at > runtime- is another of these awesome JS's features that Brendan Eich > put there just for you not to use it. LOL. Get a brain, Jorge. That's not what was asked.
From: Jorge on 3 Jan 2010 11:00 On Jan 3, 4:46 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 10:42 am, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 6:40 am, Ryan Chan <ryanchan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Have read Douglas Crockfore's JavaScript The Good Parts, it recommend > > > Augmenting Types, e.g. > > > > Function.prototype.method = function(name, func) { > > > this.prototype[name] = func; > > > return this; > > > > }; > > > > String.method('trim', function() { > > > return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, ''); > > > > }); > > > > Is this a good thing in your opinion? > > > The -handy- ability to -miraculously- extend types on the fly -at > > runtime- is another of these awesome JS's features that Brendan Eich > > put there just for you not to use it. LOL. > > Get a brain, Jorge. That's not what was asked. Dear God. NO. That's another step towards the abyss. :-) -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 11:08 On Jan 3, 11:00 am, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 4:46 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 10:42 am, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 6:40 am, Ryan Chan <ryanchan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Have read Douglas Crockfore's JavaScript The Good Parts, it recommend > > > > Augmenting Types, e.g. > > > > > Function.prototype.method = function(name, func) { > > > > this.prototype[name] = func; > > > > return this; > > > > > }; > > > > > String.method('trim', function() { > > > > return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, ''); > > > > > }); > > > > > Is this a good thing in your opinion? > > > > The -handy- ability to -miraculously- extend types on the fly -at > > > runtime- is another of these awesome JS's features that Brendan Eich > > > put there just for you not to use it. LOL. > > > Get a brain, Jorge. That's not what was asked. > > Dear God. NO. That's another step towards the abyss. :-) Is that the "Jorge" re-mix? :(
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 3 Jan 2010 11:58 On 3 Ñнв, 19:47, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > terrible idea > > > terrible > > > terrible idea > > I didn't write this. (?!) > > > > > Please, don't use demagogy, propaganda, and statement forms (novices > > also read this and they can believe that propaganda is conclusive > > true, but it's not always so) ;) > > Please don't forge quotes.  :( That was specially to show that I see your speaking manner and free you from trying to do that (you can stop trying it, I've already "appreciate" it) ;) You know, it also can be so, when person don't completely understand what he's talking about, he can use some demagogy and statement form for to show to the other readers, that he's speaking with the sure tone. Sure better to use some strong words such as "terrible" and so on. It can be treated by those who don't completely understand the subject, that that person speaks (always) truly. You statement with the sure tone that it's "terrible idea", although, it's just your (humble.) opinion. Will you mind? P.S.: Though, all this does not cancel really awful and terrible ideas ;) I also can use this words when the idea is really terrible. /ds
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 3 Jan 2010 12:13
On 3 Ñнв, 19:06, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >And that > "method" method is ridiculous. I didn't touch the concrete method(s) of Crockford, I don't mind. I was talking about the general theory of the augmenting of the built- ins. But yep, the "method" method is ridiculous, I agree ;) /ds |