On 29 Jan 2008, at 20:08, "Nathan Nobbe" <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 3:02 PM, Stut <stuttle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why? What exactly do you think you're saving by not putting the
instance in a variable? I can't think of one good reason to do this.
its an esthetic thing; and besides the simple factory method is an
easy workaround to achieve it.
as the article that, Eric, posted mentioned, other languages have
such support; ie javascript:
function Test() {}
Test.prototype = { doSomething : function() { alert('hello'); } }
new Test().doSomething();
this is along the lines of the whole returnAnArray()['someIndex']
thing,
fortunately in this case, theres a workaround in userspace ;)
I don't see how it's any more aesthetically pleasing, but each to
their own I guess.
Personally I'd use a static method in this instance. If you need to
create an instance of the class you can do so in the static method and
that way it will get destroyed when the function is done. Otherwise
the object scope is far larger than it needs to be, which IMHO is an
unnecessary waste of resources and certainly less aesthetic.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
