loosing scope/context in OOP

[Tim]

Hey, so I created my own function that works much like dojo.declare
for creating classes and implementing simple inheritance, example:

Class('Clock', Component, {

param: 12

constructor: function(){

},

method: function(){

},

obj: {
a: function(){
alert(this.param);
}
}

})

the problem is when I try to call the function "a" contained in "obj".
I try doing something like this:

var clock = new Clock();
clock.obj.a.call(clock);

but that doesn't work, it looses scope, it thinks this.param is also
contained in "obj" despite the fact that I am calling the function
with
the scope of "clock"???

Any help is appreciated.

btw, just so you know:
'Clock' is the class name
Component is the superclass
param, constructor, method, and obj are all added to the prototype of
'Clock'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tim wrote:

[...] I created my own function that works much like dojo.declare
for creating classes and implementing simple inheritance [...]

There are no classes. And `dojo.declare' is equally flawed, I suppose.
Learn to understand how prototype-based OOP works instead of trying to
impose class-based thinking on it.

<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Guide/JavaScript_Overview#JavaScript_and_Java>
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[Tim]

On Sep 13, 2:38*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Tim wrote:

[...] I created my own function that works much like dojo.declare
for creating classes and implementing simple inheritance [...]

There are no classes. *And `dojo.declare' is equally flawed, I suppose.
Learn to understand how prototype-based OOP works instead of trying to
impose class-based thinking on it.

<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Guide/JavaScript_...>

PointedEars
--
* * realism: * *HTML 4.01 Strict
* * evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
* * madness: * *XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bjoern Hoehrmann

My mistake, I realize there are no classes in Javascript and I meant
to say that it looks like dojo.declare not works like dojo.declare.
Forget the fact that I made my own function to create "classes" or
that I use a simple hack to "imitate" inheritance, basically all I
want to know is why the function won't execute in the context of which
I supply via call or apply?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tim wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Tim wrote:

>>[...] I created my own function that works much like dojo.declare
for creating classes and implementing simple inheritance [...]

There are no classes. And `dojo.declare' is equally flawed, I suppose.
Learn to understand how prototype-based OOP works instead of trying to
impose class-based thinking on it.

<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Guide/JavaScript_...>

[...]

[...]
Forget the fact that I made my own function to create "classes" or
that I use a simple hack to "imitate" inheritance, basically all I
want to know is why the function won't execute in the context of which
I supply via call or apply?

However, it cannot be ignored how you create your constructor because it
determines how the method in question is defined and called; it would
explain what you have observed. Start with a simple constructor and
prototype object instead:

function Clock()
{
this.answer = 42;
}

Clock.prototype.obj = {
a: function() {
window.alert(this.answer);
}
};

var clock = new Clock();

// alerts 42 (in conforming implementations)
clock.obj.a.call(clock);
PointedEars

P.S.
Please trim your quotes (and attribution line) to the minimum required
to retain context, and don't quote signatures.
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[John G Harris]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 at 20:38:27, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Tim wrote:

>[...] I created my own function that works much like dojo.declare
for creating classes and implementing simple inheritance [...]

There are no classes.

<snip>

Have you never wondered what ECMA 262 means when it says, in v3, section
15.4 :
"Array objects give special treatment to a certain class of
property names."
The word 'class' is being used with its ordinary English/mathematics
meaning. There's nothing wrong with a programmer using the word to
describe things in the program. There's also nothing wrong with writing
code to create objects belonging to a particular class.

What javascript hasn't got is class definitions written by the
programmer and constructor code written by the compiler.
That kind of language is often called 'class-based' but this is
misleading; it should really be called a 'class-definition-based'
language.

John
--
John Harris