Creating an Object that extends Array functionality
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 29 Oct 2009 07:14 On Oct 29, 1:48 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > kangax wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kangax wrote: > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kangax wrote: > >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kangax wrote: > >>>>>>> Are you sure you haven't missed anything? > > >>>>>>> "I would like to create own Object that would behave similar to > >>>>>>> Array Object, but would have defined some methods that are not in > >>>>>>> current > >>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>>>>> Array implementation. It need to not touch .prototype of an Array, > >>>>>>> so it > >>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>>>>> should work like this" > >>>>>> So the thread has drifted a bit. Your approach touches ".prototype > >>>>>> of an > >>>>>> Array", too. That you are using `__proto__' to refer to said object > >>>>>> instead, does not change that. > >>>>> Doesn't OP example make it clear what was meant by "touches"? If I > >>>>> understood it right, the snippet with __proto__ setting doesn't > >>>>> "touch" `Array.prototype`. > >>>> But the OP did not say "not use Array.prototype" to begin with; they > >>>> said: > >>> Of course he did. > > >> Not in what you quoted. > > >>> You just seem to have missed it again. > > >> Or maybe I understood the OP differently? > > > Ok. > > >>> Look at the second comment of OP's example. > > >> You did not quote that; Richard did, and it is hardly relevant. > > > Should I quote specific lines every time? Are you not able to understand > > the issue as a whole? Everyone seemed to have understood OP identically > > (more or less), except you. > > They did not. In any case: > > The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that > it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority > of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than > sensible. > -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970 CE) > Man, sorry, but you're just collection of "authority" cites ;) Do you have your own opinion? I mean beside your shor "No.", "The did not.", "No they are not" and so on - pathos phrases of those who belive himself higher that other. Decrease your pathos, I repeat, it really will be better ;) > [...] > > You're joking, right? :) > > I do not. > One more time :) "You do not". "No.", "They do not.", "Everybody's lie.", "No." ;) > >>> Now look a bit further down: > > >>> var c = new SuperArray([2,4,6]); > >>> [...] > >>> c.someAddedFunction(); // calls function > >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >>> How more clear should it be? > > >> "Array.prototype", but that would still be ambiguous (AISB). > > > Oh, come on. > > Is that supposed to be an argument? > What argument do you expect else in case of your troll-like style speaking (I mean concrete this one thread)? > [...] > In any case, both approaches fail to address the requirement of "not > touch[ing] the .prototype of an Array". The resulting Array instance will > inherit enumerable properties that show up in for-in iteration. > You still continue to sing your song, just because you can't say (yeah, I understand - it's hard, when you believe yourself higher than other ;)) - "sorry, guys, I did't understand it correctly", you still continue talking about stupid "the .prototype of an Array" === "[[Prototype]] of []" without listening kangax. k, one more time: You didn't understand it correctly. OP has meant: "I don't want to touch the object on which points Array.prototype as I don't wanna break down [for-in] loops for ordinary arrays. But I don't care what will be in [for-in] loops with own extended object". Is it so hard to understand? ;)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 29 Oct 2009 07:27 Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kangax wrote: >> > Should I quote specific lines every time? Are you not able to >> > understand the issue as a whole? Everyone seemed to have understood OP >> > identically (more or less), except you. >> >> They did not. In any case: >> >> The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever >> that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> than sensible. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970 CE) > > [...] >> [...] >> In any case, both approaches fail to address the requirement of "not >> touch[ing] the .prototype of an Array". The resulting Array instance >> will inherit enumerable properties that show up in for-in iteration. > > You still continue to sing your song, just because you can't say > (yeah, I understand - it's hard, when you believe yourself higher than > other ;)) - "sorry, guys, I did't understand it correctly", you still > continue talking about stupid "the .prototype of an Array" === > "[[Prototype]] of []" [...] q.e.d. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov on 29 Oct 2009 07:35 On Oct 29, 2:27 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kangax wrote: > >> > Should I quote specific lines every time? Are you not able to > >> > understand the issue as a whole? Everyone seemed to have understood OP > >> > identically (more or less), except you. > > >> They did not. In any case: > > >> The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever > >> that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> than sensible. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970 CE) > > > [...] > >> [...] > >> In any case, both approaches fail to address the requirement of "not > >> touch[ing] the .prototype of an Array". The resulting Array instance > >> will inherit enumerable properties that show up in for-in iteration. > > > You still continue to sing your song, just because you can't say > > (yeah, I understand - it's hard, when you believe yourself higher than > > other ;)) - "sorry, guys, I did't understand it correctly", you still > > continue talking about stupid "the .prototype of an Array" === > > "[[Prototype]] of []" [...] > > q.e.d. > > PointedEars > -- > var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( > navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 > && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 > ) // Plone, register_function.js:16 :D don't be worry, you already lost ;) Again advise to you (you should sure ignore it ;)) - try to discuss with more scientific approach and without thinking that you're higher than other (if you want the objective meaning - you're now just a bit deeper in ES than casual programmer, so don't lie to yourself when talking with other from the top ;)). And yep - the talk is over with you.
From: wilq on 5 Nov 2009 06:02 Thanks all of you of interesting answers. It seems that this is impossible to do in all browsers. I really like a Kangax solution. But unfortunatelly it does not work on IE :( (because of __proto__) Hopefully future JavaScript solutions will allow this kind of problem to be solved. Cheers, wilq32
From: VK on 5 Nov 2009 13:31
wilq wrote: > Thanks all of you of interesting answers. It seems that this is > impossible to do in all browsers. ??... as you wish of course... Out of curiosity, what is exactly dysfunctional and on what platform in the posted solution? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/13d8201987b9d24e |