No difference to me whether it's DynLayer_create or DynLayer.create, you should never ever have to call that function manually. If anyone decides to change it just be sure to update the related files: dyndoc, events, inline.
Dan
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 04:32:00PM +0100, Bart Bizon wrote:
> I totally agree. General functions should be kept static as far as possible.
> It doesn't make sense to have every Dynlayer object inherit all that generic functionality.
> Total waste of space :)
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Robert Rainwater <rra...@ya...>
> Till: dyn...@li... <dyn...@li...>
> Datum: den 16 december 2000 05:32
> Ämne: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Large number of updates/fixes
>
>
> >I haven't seen the new code yet but wouldn't it be
> >better if the new global functions were static methods
> >of the DynLayer. Like:
> >
> >DynLayer.createElement = function(dlyr) {}
> >
> >This way you would say DynLayer.createElement(). I
> >think this would make it more clear what the intent of
> >the functions were if they were static. I don't think
> >this would require any more memory than a global
> >function. For users looking at the code, I think a
> >static method would be more obvious. Of course, it
> >would not change the way it works.
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >--- Dan Steinman <dy...@fu...> wrote:
> >> Just change the .createElement() call to
> >> DynLayer_createElement(dlyr).
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> >http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> >Dyn...@li...
> >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
|
