- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:57:01 -0700
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> >> > wrote: >> >> I can see why it may need a prototype. But why does it need a >> >> constructor? >> > >> > From what I'm told, in order to explain how the object was created. >> > I.e. to avoid building "magic" into the API. >> > >> > But maybe there are other ways to do that? >> >> This is a cool discussion, but it's also a complete tangent from the >> original thread. ^_^ > > > Hi Tab, Good point. Changing title to start new thread. > > Hi Jonas, I don't understand. If the two objects are entangled, having one > call that creates both seems like a better explanation than pretending to > have two constructors. That the two objects have different APIs and methods > are adequately explained by different prototypes. But how does the call that create the two objects create them? If not through their constructor? / Jonas
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 23:57:57 UTC