SV: [Dynapi-Dev] Large number of updates/fixes

[Bart B. <ba...@ho...>]

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-----
Fr=E5n: Robert Rainwater <rra...@ya...>
Till: dyn...@li... =
<dyn...@li...>
Datum: den 16 december 2000 05:32
=C4mne: 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 =3D 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).
>>=20
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>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
>