Yes I did, but I never really understood its merits. It made me want to
extend JavaScript to have more class-like classes instead of
prototype-based, however.
The XObject file I sent will do that. If the classes are built that way the
objects have getClass(), isInstanceOf() and callSuper() methods, for
instance. [callSuper() is actually called callMethod() as it doesn't
require the called method to be in a superclass at that level.)
There's also a clone() method (to make a clone of course :-), but I haven't
tested it fully. It seems to work just fine in the places I have used it
though.
At 2000-11-10 18:03 , you wrote:
>Have you had the opportunity to check out the SuperClass Object that was in
>the API about 2 or 3 months back?
>
>I have since expanded on this to work in both IE and NS. It has been
>extensivly tested and is virtually bug-free. (No bugs found for over a
>month)
>
>I use it with a version of the API that I have been working on for over 3
>months. It is now an integrated part of the system, allowing creation of
>very advanced web applications with simple code extending other objects.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joachim Lundgren" <lu...@ho...>
>To: <dyn...@li...>
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:51 AM
>Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] XObject, a superclass
>
>> I have noticed y'all might wanna use a superclass-type I've been working
>on.
>>
>> In the zip there is a stripped-down version I use (quite successfully) and
>> some sort of documentation (which isn't finished - so an examination of
>the
>> source might reveal how it's supposed to work).
>>
>> If you need more thorough example than what's in the doc and source please
>> let me know.
>>
>> /Lunna
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Dynapi-Dev mailing list
>Dyn...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
|
