Terminology? Object structure definition, not a class?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: CreateTextFile
Next: Precise printing from Javascript?
From: David Mark on 24 Jul 2010 00:24 On Jul 23, 11:24 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 23, 7:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> John G Harris wrote: > >>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead > >>>>>>> of conflating them to ad hominems. > >>>>>>> HTH > >>>>>> No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself > >>>>>> again. > >>>>> You like talking about me, don't you? > >>>> I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation, > >>>> but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as > >>>> a person. > >>> I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self- > >>> righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group. ;) > >> Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me.. > >> You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense. > > >>>> I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument, > >>>> that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype". > >>> We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances > >>> as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a > >>> comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how > >>> confusing that can be? > >> In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object) > >> it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in > >> f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v. > > > That was demonstrated by my earlier post. > > You don't see how your definition differs from the correct definition? > > >> That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree. > > > Agreed! > > I'm content with this outcome. I'm heartened by the exchange with two > other posters. You still don't get it. The *other* posters restated part of what I had stated in my original answer (way back when). You know, the bit you were so pleased with about the binding between the constructor's prototype property and the constructed object (and the subsequent examples demonstrating the fleeting nature of this binding and how the instanceof operator could be fooled). Yeah, those. In other words, you wasted a ton of time (including some of mine) for no reason, other than perhaps laziness. Apology accepted. :)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 24 Jul 2010 01:07 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> John G Harris wrote: > > [...] > >>> If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and >>> the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then >>> that's the programmer's problem. >> Thank you. Learn something new every day. >> > > You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my > examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them. Sounds like you are a terrible communicator if all that is necessary. A good communicator meets their audience half-way. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 24 Jul 2010 01:23 On Jul 24, 1:07 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> John G Harris wrote: > > > [...] > > >>> If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and > >>> the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then > >>> that's the programmer's problem. > >> Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > > You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my > > examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them. > > Sounds like you are a terrible communicator if all that is necessary. A > good communicator meets their audience half-way. > In other words, you didn't read the preceding posts either.
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Jul 2010 01:52 On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: >> >>> John G Harris wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez >>>> wrote: >> >> [snip informative explanation] >> >> >> >>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. >> >> Example: >> >> function Person(){} >> Person.prototype = {}; >> var a = new Person; > > Use the call operator. Thanks. > There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 24 Jul 2010 02:10
On Jul 24, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > >>> John G Harris wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez > >>>> wrote: > > >> [snip informative explanation] > > >>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > >> Example: > > >> function Person(){} > >> Person.prototype = {}; > >> var a = new Person; > > > Use the call operator. Thanks. > > There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it? |