modisposition

Just a quick post about Strict standard error when we have a class method which would like to behave differently if called statically. Apparently, and this is a truly old bogus I opened ages ago , the solution was to supress Strict errors (lol, thanks developers) even if in every other programming language, via overload, this kind of situation could be solved in a bit. How to solve the problem? While last post I suggested a couple of runtime solutions, this time I suggest to simply avoid the method definition and use a different one with a meaningful name. In this example I created a String class: class String { // choose a recognizable name for protected method static protected function _concat(array $arguments){ return new self(implode('', $arguments)); } // use magic __callStatic function static public function __callStatic($name, array $arguments){ // check the recognizable name switch($name = '_'.$name){ ...

Update Above technique could be used to create an implicit Singleton as well. class Demo { // your unbelievable stuff } function Demo($some, $arg){ static $instance; return isset($instance) ? $instance : ($instance = new Demo($some, $arg)); } Demo(1,2)->doStuff(); Demo(1,2) === Demo(1,2); // true from Wikipedia The factory method pattern is an object-oriented design pattern ... More generally, the term factory method is often used to refer to any method whose main purpose is creation of objects. I have talked about JavaScript possibility different times in my prototypal inheritance documentation, and in other posts of this blog. The summary is that thanks to perfect this behaviour , that for some unknown reason someone would like to modify in JS2 , making them ambiguous when you are using a constructor as a function and not, for example, as private method, we can create intelligent constructors that does not require the usage of new keyword - in a Pythonic way: // Java...

I've never seen this technique yet, but basically it allows us to create private methods, without privileged , and in an way that does not allow subclasses to inherit them ... does it sound interesting? ;) As we can read in my JavaScript Prototypal Inheritance for Classical Emulation documentation, there is a way to easily create private methods without usage of privileged . The advantage of this way is, as explained in my doc, is that JavaScript interpreter does not have to create many functions for each declared instance . Here there is a basic example: // our constructor function Person(name, age){ this.name = name; this.age = age; }; // prototype assignment Person.prototype = (function(){ // we have a scope for private stuff // created once and not for every instance function toString(){ return this.name + " is " + this.age; }; // create the prototype and return them return { // never forget the constructor ... ...

Few days ago I read an interesting post about Simple JavaScript Inheritance . The most hilarious thing is that prototypal inheritance is truly simple, as John wrote, but there are still a lot of developers that do not probably understand perfectly them. In this link you can find an " all in one " page about JavaScript prototypal inheritcance and classical emulation. As I wrote at the end of that page, please do not hesitate to correct me if there is something wrong, or please ask me more details if there is something that is not so clear. Sorry for my not perfect yet English, and have fun with JavaScript. (happy easter too!)