W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2015

Creating entangled objects

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:15:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9gK6oOz4R20mHng+1Hha_S=Yy4fUrPdWbUJVcZiCTuvSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
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.



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 22:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 March 2015 22:16:26 UTC