我真的跟John Resig's simple inheritance method交往。它有很好的语法,而且this._super非常强大。
2014年很难,我希望能够定义getter& amp; setters以及其他描述符(但如果可能的话仍然保持Resig版本的简单性。)
我如何保持语法类似于我亲爱的Resig?
我的梦想是这样的:
var Person = Class.extend({
init: function(isDancing){
this.dancing = isDancing;
},
dance: function(){
return this.dancing;
}
tools: { // <---- this would be so awesome
get: function() { ... },
set: function(v) { ... },
enumerable: true
},
});
var Ninja = Person.extend({
init: function(){
this._super( false );
},
dance: function(){
// Call the inherited version of dance()
return this._super();
},
swingSword: function(){
return true;
},
tools: {
get: _super, // <---- and this too
set: function(v) {
this._super(v);
doSomethingElse();
}
}
});
答案 0 :(得分:1)
我不知道你为什么要这样做,因为你可以通过JavaScript对象的性质轻易地绕过这个,但我喜欢你问题的精神。
我没有在你的类中定义方法,而是想到为什么不为所有类定义它?在eJohn的代码中,我在将原型声明为变量之后立即添加了两个函数。 StackOverflow有点长,所以请查看this cool pen I made以获得更清晰的示例。
...// Instantiate a base class (but only create the instance,
// don't run the init constructor)
initializing = true;
var prototype = new this();
initializing = false;
prototype.set = function (attr, val) {
return this[attr] = val;
}
prototype.get = function (attr) {
return this[attr];
}
// Copy the properties over onto the new prototype ...
然后你的课程看起来像这样:
var Person = Class.extend({
init: function(isDancing){
this.dancing = isDancing;
},
dance: function(){
return this.dancing;
}
});
var Ninja = Person.extend({
init: function(){
this._super( false );
},
dance: function(){
// Call the inherited version of dance()
return this._super();
},
swingSword: function(){
return true;
},
set: function (attr, val) {
this._super(attr, val);
console.log('doing other things');
}
});
所以你可以做这样的事情:
var p = new Person(true);
p.get('dancing'); // => true
p.set('dancing', false); // Telling the person to please stop dancing (he's drunk)
p.dance(); // => false... "whew!"
p.get('dancing') // => false - he must be asleep
var n = new Ninja();
n.get('dancing'); // => false, ninjas don't dance
n.set('dancing', true); // except my ninjas do
n.get('dancing'); // => true, cause they're rad