Skip to content

fix typo #25

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix typo #25

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions _posts/2014-07-09-javascript-constructor-problem.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ snafu.concatenated()
//=> 'Situation Normal All Fsked Up'
{% endhighlight %}

Now it works, but of course `snafu` is an instance of `Fubar`, not of `LoggingFubar`. Is that what you want? Who knows!? This isn't a justification for the pattern, as much as an explanation that it is a useful, but leaky abstraction. It's doesn't "just work," but it can make certain things possible (like decorating constructors) that are otherwise even more awkward to implement.
Now it works, but of course `snafu` is an instance of `Fubar`, not of `LoggingFubar`. Is that what you want? Who knows!? This isn't a justification for the pattern, as much as an explanation that it is a useful, but leaky abstraction. It doesn't "just work," but it can make certain things possible (like decorating constructors) that are otherwise even more awkward to implement.

### solution: overload its meaning

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -253,4 +253,4 @@ var arrayOfSevereProblems = problems.filter(Fubar.is);

There you have it: Constructors that fail when called without `new` are a potential problem, and three solutions we can use are, respectively, auto-instantiation, overloading the constructor, or killing such calls with fire.

(discuss on [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/2acr9f/a_javascript_constructor_problem_and_three/))
(discuss on [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/2acr9f/a_javascript_constructor_problem_and_three/))