Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 70/1517 | < Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >

• Bitmap & Object Collision Help

  - by MarkEz

  Is it possible to detect when an object and a bitmap collide. I have an arraylist of sprites that I am shooting with an image. I tried using this method here but as soon as the bitmap appears the sprite disappears, this is in the Sprite class: public boolean isCollision(Bitmap other) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub if(other.getWidth() > x && other.getWidth() < x + width && >other.getHeight() > y && other.getHeight() < y + height); return true; }

  Read the article

• Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle?

  - by Paul T Davies

  Say we have a list of Task entities, and a ProjectTask sub type. Tasks can be closed at any time, except ProjectTasks which cannot be closed once they have a status of Started. The UI should ensure the option to close a started ProjectTask is never available, but some safeguards are present in the domain: public class Task { public Status Status { get; set; } public virtual void Close() { Status = Status.Closed; } } public ProjectTask : Task { public override void Close() { if (Status == Status.Started) throw new Exception("Cannot close a started Project Task"); base.Close(); } } Now when calling Close() on a Task, there is a chance the call will fail if it is a ProjectTask with the started status, when it wouldn't if it was a base Task. But this is the business requirements. It should fail. Can this be regarded as a violation?

  Read the article

• Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

  - by jerzi

  There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

  Read the article

• Designing a single look up entity

  - by altsyset

  In almost every application you have this look up entity that provides a dynamic references. This are things like type, category, etc. These entities will always have id, name, desc So at first I designed different entities for each look up. Like education_type, education_level, degree_type.... But on a second thought I decided to have on entity for each of these kinds of entities. But when I am done with the design and check the relation this entity will be referenced by almost all entities in the system and I don't believe that is appropriate. So What is your take on this? Can you give me some clear pros and cons?

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

  Read the article

• OOP Design: relationship between entity classes

  - by beginner_

  I have at first sight a simple issue but can't wrap my head around on how to solve. I have an abstract class Compound. A Compound is made up of Structures. Then there is also a Container which holds 1 Compound. A "special" implementation of Compound has Versions. For that type of Compound I want the Container to hold the Versionof the Compound and not the Compound itself. You could say "just create an interface Containable" and a Container holds 1 Containable. However that won't work. The reason is I'm creating a framework and the main part of that framework is to simplify storing and especially searching for special data type held by Structure objects. Hence to search for Containers which contain a Compound made up of a specific Structure requires that the "Path" from Containerto Structure is well defined (Number of relationships or joins). I hope this was understandable. My question is how to design the classes and relationships to be able to do what I outlined.

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to handle data abstraction in this example?

  - by sigil

  I'm building an application that retrieves Sharepoint list data via a web service SPlists.Lists. To create an instance of the web service, I have the following class: class SharepointServiceCreator { public SPlists.Lists createService() { listsService.Url = "http://wss/sites/SPLists/_vti_bin/lists.asmx"; listsService.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; SPlists.Lists listsService=new SPlists.Lists(); } } I'm concerned that this isn't good OOP abstraction, though, because in order to create this service elsewhere in my application, I would need the following code: class someClass { public void someMethod() { SharepointServiceCreator s=new SharepointServiceCreator() SPlists.Lists listService=s.createService() } } Having to use declare the instance of listService in someMethod as type SPlists.Lists seems wrong, because it means that someClass needs to know about how SharepointServiceCreator is implemented. Or is this ok?

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

  - by Mike

  Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

  Read the article

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• OOP Structure for web application

  - by Query

  Ok so I have a website in which users complete tasks to earn points. When they earn enough points, they rise in rank. The site from my understanding is very basic and only executes one query or two queries at most a page. There is a user table, a support ticket table, and an orders table. All of these contain a relational row for username. Our class was familiarized with OOP back in highschool with Java but that was for video games and I could grasp the concept on why you would need a class player and class enemy. However I don't understand it's web application. At least not in my situation. I understand the user class might contain stuff like: getUsername getPoints getEmail setEmail addPoints (does this belong here? OR only things the user can manipulate should be here?) etc.. But I'm at a loss with everything else such as user registration. Can you help give me a wire framework that I could wrap my head around? Pointing me to a good eBook would help greatly

  Read the article

• Bitmap & Object Collision Help

  - by MarkEz

  Is it possible to detect when an object and a bitmap collide. I have an arraylist of sprites that I am shooting with an image. I tried using this method here but as soon as the bitmap appears the sprite disappears, this is in the Sprite class: public boolean isCollision(Bitmap other) { if(other.getWidth() > x && other.getWidth() < x + width && >other.getHeight() > y && other.getHeight() < y + height); return true; }

  Read the article

• Should Equality be commutative within a Class Hierachy?

  - by vossad01

  It is easy to define the Equals operation in ways that are not commutative. When providing equality against other types, there are obviously situations (in most languages) were equality not being commutative is unavoidable. However, within one's own inheritance hierarchy where the root base class defines an equality member, a programmer has more control. Thus you can create situations where (A = B) ? (B = A), where A and B both derive from base class T Substituting the = with the appropriate variation for a given language. (.Equals(_), ==, etc.) That seems wrong to me, however, I recognize I may be biased by background in Mathematics. I have not been in programming long enough to know what is standard/accepted/preferred practice when programming. Do most programmers just accept .Equals(_)may not be commutative and code defensibly. Do they expect commutativity and get annoyed if it is not. In short, when working in a class hierarchy, should effort me made to ensure Equality is commutative?

  Read the article

• Should the 12-String be in it's own class and why?

  - by MayNotBe

  This question is regarding a homework project in my first Java programming class (online program). The assignment is to create a "stringed instrument" class using (among other things) an array of String names representing instrument string names ("A", "E", etc). The idea for the 12-string is beyond the scope of the assignment (it doesn't have to be included at all) but now that I've thought of it, I want to figure out how to make it work. Part of me feels like the 12-String should have it's own class, but another part of me feels that it should be in the guitar class because it's a guitar. I suppose this will become clear as I progress but I thought I would see what kind of response I get here. Also, why would they ask for a String[] for the instrument string names? Seems like a char[] makes more sense. Thank you for any insight. Here's my code so far (it's a work in progress): public class Guitar { private int numberOfStrings = 6; private static int numberOfGuitars = 0; private String[] stringNotes = {"E", "A", "D", "G", "B", "A"}; private boolean tuned = false; private boolean playing = false; public Guitar(){ numberOfGuitars++; } public Guitar(boolean twelveString){ if(twelveString){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = 12; } } public int getNumberOfStrings() { return numberOfStrings; } public void setNumberOfStrings(int strings) { if(strings == 12 || strings == 6) { if(strings == 12){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = strings; } if(strings == 6) numberOfStrings = strings; }//if else System.out.println("***ERROR***Guitar can only have 6 or 12 strings***ERROR***"); } public void getStringNotes() { for(int i = 0; i < stringNotes.length; i++){ if(i == stringNotes.length - 1) System.out.println(stringNotes[i]); else System.out.print(stringNotes[i] + ", "); }//for }

  Read the article

• Did Bjarne Stroustrup create the terms constructor/destructor when talking about objects?

  - by user104971

  I was watching this keynote and Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) claims that he hadn't yet invented the words constructor and destructor yet when he was giving an example of RAII. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBLXBJr0HU I know the concept of construction and destruction has been around a lot longer (even in C, a function that allocates and returns a struct and then a function that frees it etc.), but was Bjarne really the first to invent the terms?

  Read the article

• A programmer who doesn't get to program - where to turn? [closed]

  - by Just an Anon

  I'm in my mid 20's, and have been working as a full time programmer / developer for the last ~6 years, with several years of part-time freelancing before this, and three straight years of freelancing in the middle of this short career. I work mostly with PHP and the Drupal framework. By and large, I focus on programming custom pieces of functionality; these, of course, vary greatly from project to project. I've got years of solid experience with OOP (have done some Java & C# years ago, too) including intensive experience with front-end development, and even some design work. I've lead small teams (2-4 people) of developers. And of course, given the large amount of freelancing, I've got decent project- & client-management skills. My problem is staying motivated at any place of employment. In the time mentioned I've worked (full-time) at six local companies. The longest I've stayed at any company was just over a year. I find that I'll get hired and be very excited and motivated for the first few months, but the work quickly gets "stale." By that I mean that the interesting components (ie. the programming) get done, and the rest of the work turns into boring cleanup (move a button, add text, change colours, add a field). I don't get challenged, and I don't feel like I'm learning anything new. This happens repeatedly time and time again, and I always end up leaving for either a new opportunity, or to freelance. I'm wondering if perhaps I've painted myself into a corner with the rather niche work market (although with very high demand and good compensation) and need to explore other career choices. Another possibility is that I may be choosing the wrong places of employment, mostly small agencies, and need to look into working for a larger, more established firm. I find programming, writing code, and architecting solutions very rewarding. When I'm working on an interesting problem I lose all sense of time and 14-16 hours can fly by like minutes. I get the same exciting feeling when I'm doing high-level planning of a complex system, breaking up the work and figuring out how everything will tie-in together. I absolutely hate doing small, "stupid" changes that pose no challenge, yet seem to make up more and more of my work. I want to find a workplace where I will get to work on such tasks, be challenged, and improve in all areas of product development. This maybe a programming job, management, architecture of desktop apps, or may be managing a taco stand on a beach in Mexico - I don't know, and I need some advice and real-world feedback. What are some job areas worth exploring? The requirements are fairly simple: working with computers interacting with others challenging decent pay (I'm making just short of 90k / year with a month of vacation & some benefits, and would like to stay in this range, but am willing to take a temporary cut in pay for a more interesting position) Any advice would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Is "If a method is re-used without changes, put the method in a base class, else create an interface" a good rule-of-thumb?

  - by exizt

  A colleague of mine came up with a rule-of-thumb for choosing between creating a base class or an interface. He says: Imagine every new method that you are about to implement. For each of them, consider this: will this method be implemented by more than one class in exactly this form, without any change? If the answer is "yes", create a base class. In every other situation, create an interface. For example: Consider the classes cat and dog, which extend the class mammal and have a single method pet(). We then add the class alligator, which doesn't extend anything and has a single method slither(). Now, we want to add an eat() method to all of them. If the implementation of eat() method will be exactly the same for cat, dog and alligator, we should create a base class (let's say, animal), which implements this method. However, if it's implementation in alligator differs in the slightest way, we should create an IEat interface and make mammal and alligator implement it. He insists that this method covers all cases, but it seems like over-simplification to me. Is it worth following this rule-of-thumb?

  Read the article

• Deleting a game object

  - by Balls

  I tried doing this but it cause an access violation. void GameObjectFactory::Update() { for( std::list<GameObject*>::iterator it=gameObjectList.begin() ..... (*it)->Update(); } void Bomb::Update() { if( time == 2.0f ) { gameObjectFactory->Remove( this ); } } void GameObjectFactory::Remove( ... ) { gameObjectList.remove( ... ); } My thoughts would be to mark the object to be dead then let the factory handle it the on next frame for deletion. Is it the best and fastest way? What do you think?

  Read the article

• Should the 12-String be in it's own class and why? Java

  - by MayNotBe

  This is my first question here. I will amend it as instructed. This is regarding a homework project in my first Java programming class (online program). The assignment is to create a "stringed instrument" class using (among other things) an array of String names representing instrument string names ("A", "E", etc). The idea for the 12-string is beyond the scope of the assignment (it doesn't have to be included at all) but now that I've thought of it, I want to figure out how to make it work. Part of me feels like the 12-String should have it's own class, but another part of me feels that it should be in the guitar class because it's a guitar. I suppose this will become clear as I progress but I thought I would see what kind of response I get here. Also, why would they ask for a String[] for the instrument string names? Seems like a char[] makes more sense. Thank you for any insight. Here's my code so far (it's a work in progress): public class Guitar { private int numberOfStrings = 6; private static int numberOfGuitars = 0; private String[] stringNotes = {"E", "A", "D", "G", "B", "A"}; private boolean tuned = false; private boolean playing = false; public Guitar(){ numberOfGuitars++; } public Guitar(boolean twelveString){ if(twelveString){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = 12; } } public int getNumberOfStrings() { return numberOfStrings; } public void setNumberOfStrings(int strings) { if(strings == 12 || strings == 6) { if(strings == 12){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = strings; } if(strings == 6) numberOfStrings = strings; }//if else System.out.println("***ERROR***Guitar can only have 6 or 12 strings***ERROR***"); } public void getStringNotes() { for(int i = 0; i < stringNotes.length; i++){ if(i == stringNotes.length - 1) System.out.println(stringNotes[i]); else System.out.print(stringNotes[i] + ", "); }//for }

  Read the article

• Multiple parameters vs single parameter(object with multiple properties)

  - by Shwetanka

  I have an Entity Student with following properties - (name, joinedOn, birthday, age, batch, etc.) and a function fetchStudents(<params>). I want to fetch students based on multiple filters. In my method I have two ways to pass filters. Pass all filters as params to the method Make a class StudentCriteria with filters as fields and then pass the object of this class While working in java I always go with the second option but recently I'm working in php and I was advised to go with the first way. I am unable to figure out which way is better in maintaining the code, reusability and performance wise. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Android app, No error message but has stopped unexpectedly [migrated]

  - by user74722

  Does anyone know what is my problem. I do not have any compile error messages however when i run the app it crashes and stops unexpectedly. Here is my codes. Thank you in advance. ListView l ; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.activity_final_project); String arr[]={"Red","Green","Blue","Yellow","Cyan"}; l=(ListView) findViewById(R.id.listView1); ArrayAdapter<String> adapter=new ArrayAdapter<String>(getApplicationContext(), android.R.layout.simple_list_item_1, arr); l.setAdapter(adapter); Button buttonOne = (Button) findViewById(R.id.button1); buttonOne.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener(){ @Override public void onClick(View v){ setContentView(R.layout.layout_save); // setContentView(R.layout.activity_final_project); //startActivity(new Intent("com.example.finalproject.layout_save")); } }); }

  Read the article

• Vertex Array Object (OpenGL)

  - by user5140

  I've just started out with OpenGL I still haven't really understood what Vertex Array Objects are and how they can be employed. If Vertex Buffer Object are used to store vertex data (such as their positions and texture coordinates) and the VAOs only contain status flags, where can they be used? What's their purpose? As far as I understood from the (very incomplete and unclear) GL Wiki, VAOs are used to set the flags/status for every vertex, following the order described in the Element Array Buffer, but the wiki was really ambiguous about it and I'm not really sure about what VAOs really do and how I could employ them.

  Read the article

• Which order to define getters and setters in? [closed]

  - by N.N.

  Is there a best practice for the order to define getters and setters in? There seems to be two practices: getter/setter pairs first getters, then setters (or the other way around) To illuminate the difference here is a Java example of getter/setter pairs: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } And here is a Java example of first getters, then setters: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } I think the latter type of ordering is clearer both in code and in class diagrams but I do not know if that is enough to rule out the other type of ordering.

  Read the article

• [PHP] Making a good singleton registry class structure which hold your objects

  - by Saif Bechan

  I am working on a web application in PHP. I have a singleton class called registry. This class will hold all the objects i need throughout my application, such as loader classes, template classes, database, classes, etc. When an object of the registry class is created I send it an array with the classes it need to load: // Create the registry $registry = registry::singleton(); // Store those core objects $registry->storeObjects(Array('session','db','page','template','errors')); In this example I only put some of the classes, to get the basic idea. Now I have some classes in the registry that use each other. For example the 'errors' object uses the 'page' object. Now I was wondering if it is a good practice to make an instance of the registry object in the errors object. Like this; class errors{ private $registry; public function __construct(){ $this->registry = registry::singleton(); } } So there is an instance of the registry object, inside an object of the registry object. This does not sound like a good idea to me. Anyone have a suggestion how to model such a thing?

  Read the article

• Designing interfaces: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to m

  - by fireeyedboy

  Was: Design by contract: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to mind I like the idea of designing by contract a lot (at least, as far as I understand the principal). I believe it means you define intefaces first before you start implementing actual code, right? However, from my limited experience (3 OOP years now) I usually can't resist the urge to start coding pretty early, for several reasons: because my limited experience has shown me I am unable to predict what methods I will be needing in the interface, so I might as well start coding right away. or because I am simply too impatient to write out the whole interfaces first. or when I do try it, I still wind up implementing bits of code already, because I fear I might forget this or that imporant bit of code, that springs to mind when I am designing the interfaces. As you see, especially with the last two points, this leads to a very disorderly way of doing things. Tasks get mixed up. I should draw a clear line between designing interfaces and actual coding. If you, unlike me, are a good/disciplined planner, as intended above, how do you: ...know the majority of methods you will be needing up front so well? Especially if it's components that implement stuff you are not familiar with yet. ...resist the urge to start coding right away? ...deal with code that comes to mind when you are designing the interfaces? UPDATE: Thank you for the answers so far. Valuable insights! And... I stand corrected; it seems I misinterpreted the idea of Design By Contract. For clarity, what I actually meant was: "coming up with interface methods before implementing the actual components". An additional thing that came up in my mind is related to point 1): b) How do you know the majority of components you will be needing. How do you flesh out these things before you start actually coding? For arguments sake, let's say I'm a novice with the MVC pattern, and I wanted to implement such a component/architecture. A naive approach would be to think of: a front controller some abstract action controller some abstract view ... and be done with it, so to speak. But, being more familiar with the MVC pattern, I know now that it makes sense to also have: a request object a router a dispatcher a response object view helpers etc.. etc.. If you map this idea to some completely new component you want to develop, with which you have no experience yet; how do you come up with these sort of additional components without actually coding the thing, and stuble upon the ideas that way? How would you know up front how fine grained some components should be? Is this a matter of disciplining yourself to think it out thoroughly? Or is it a matter of being good at thinking in abstractions?

  Read the article

• Javascript "this" variable confusion

  - by Assaf M

  Hi I am currently reading the book "Javascript: The Good Parts" and was playing with Functions. I produced a test script to test some properties and I am somewhat confused by the results. Here is the code: <h3>Object</h3> <div style="padding-left: 10px;"> <script type="text/javascript"> function outterF() { document.writeln("outterF.this = " + this + "<br>"); function innerF() { document.writeln("innerF.this = " + this + "<br>"); return this; }; var inner = innerF(); return this; } document.writeln("<b>From Inside:</b><br>"); var outF = outterF(); var inF = outF.inner; document.writeln("<br>"); document.writeln("<b>From Outside:</b><br>"); document.writeln("outterF.this = " + outF + "<br>"); document.writeln("innerF.this = " + inF + "<br>"); </script> </div> Result is: Object From Inside: outterF.this = [object Window] innerF.this = [object Window] From Outside: outterF.this = [object Window] innerF.this = undefined Notice that outF.inner returns "undefined", is that some kind of a language bug? Obviously, outF.inner points to Window object that has nothing to do with my object but shouldn't it be at least pointing to a Function object instead? Thanks -Assaf

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >