Re: My Small Breasts and I

leisulin — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:52:10 -0000

My previous girlfriend had very small breasts, not really any bigger than a man's "breasts". However, I thought they were extremely sexy, because since they were so small, she never wore a bra because a bra would have had almost no effect, and when I say almost I mean the ONLY effect would have been to conceal her nipples a little bit more. Which meant that her nipples were a little more visible through her blouse than they would have been otherwise, which added to their sexiness. And you could more easily see or divine the outline of her breasts through her blouse, but it didn't look "cheap", it looked great. So, to all you girls out there thinking of getting a boob job: DON'T DO IT! They're probably beautiful the way they are!

Re: Object Oriented Programming in JavaScript

leisulin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:42:37 -0000

Referring to your example near the beginning where you explain prototypes, I was not understanding how the interpreter digs up the property values from the prototype objects when the time comes. But now I think I see what's really going on:

inB: it's actually attached to x as a property directly (x.inB)

inBProto: it's not found on x directly, but the interpreter knows to look on B.prototype to find it; it needs to know the identity of B, which is its own constructor, and then it looks on that object's prototype object and finds it like this:
x.constructor.prototype.inBProto

inA: again not a member of x, but it's also a member of B.prototype, and will be found here:
x.constructor.prototype.inA

inAProto: this one's in A's prototype, so we should have to look here:
x.constructor.prototype.constructor.prototype.inAProto

inObj: found on
x.constructor.prototype.constructor.prototype.constructor.prototype.inObj

I typed all of those expressions in in place of the shorter versions, and they all still displayed the same result: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So somewhere internally, when the interpreter is looking up a property name, it probably does something like this: try finding it on the object, no dice?, try it on theObject.constructor.prototype, no dice?, keep inserting another constructor.prototype in the middle there until that newly added prototype object itself is undefined, meaning of course that the property can't possibly be attached to it, so the ultimate result is undefined. Am I finally getting this?

What I DON'T get is the code on page 33 of Javascript: The Good Parts, which is heavily related to this discussion:
Function.prototype.method = function(name,func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
return this;
}

This is designed to let you add methods without the "ugliness" of the prototype keyword in there. So, Function now has a new method method added to its prototype. But next, Mr. Crockford immediately shows how to define an integer method of Number:
Number.method('integer', function() {
return Math[this < 0 ? 'ceiling' : 'floor'](this);
});
which he puts into use immediately with:
document.writeln((-10/3).integer());
which prints "-3".

I'm having some major mental block here. We seem to be executing a method of Number called "method", and the implication is that Number got this method from the Function.prototype's method method. Does Number "inherit" from Function? It surely inherits from Object, but from Function? Would someone please help me out here?

Disqus - Latest Comments for leisulin

Re: My Small Breasts and I

Re: Object Oriented Programming in JavaScript