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

Re: Creating entangled objects

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:57:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_72x_xmRXSA4aLR+x7ZWVDd18kG1CcjCi3mGcqbYS9uA@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 March 2015 23:57:57 UTC