Commit graph

146 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Ilya Kantor
7c691b48c4
Merge pull request #1585 from lumosmind/patch-31
not proved features of class properties
2019-11-06 21:34:25 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
c78cfdf454
Merge pull request #1584 from lumosmind/patch-30
"computed property name" instead of "computed property"
2019-11-06 21:33:59 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
763a639323
Merge pull request #1588 from lumosmind/patch-36
prove of concept
2019-11-06 20:50:39 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
29c4fc680e closes #1589 2019-11-06 20:37:44 +03:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
7ca5f53dae
"syntactic sugar" instead of "syntax sugar" (#1582)
"syntactic sugar" instead of "syntax sugar"
2019-11-05 22:44:26 +03:00
Mustafa Kemal Tuna
c905bda88a
prove of concept
there is an example code but it doesn't prove anything. But it was created to show that :
"That actually does the same as assigning it as a property directly:"
2019-11-05 21:06:45 +03:00
Mustafa Kemal Tuna
11ec67268f
example code must be unexecutable
example code must be executable because, it has dependent on another example code above. So it can't work in plunker container.
2019-11-05 19:54:19 +03:00
Mustafa Kemal Tuna
4df1cb9bbd
not proved features of class properties
"The property name is not placed into User.prototype. Instead, it is created by new before calling the constructor, it’s a property of the object itself."

you are talking about some features of "class properties" but the example code doesn't show these features. I changed the example code to show that defining property out of the constructor method is different from defining method in class structure.
2019-11-05 14:48:31 +03:00
Mustafa Kemal Tuna
0f91236b11
computed property name instead of computed propert
"computed property" term can make us recall "dynamically computed property" like fullname. And it can create misunderstanding.

get fullname(){
    return this.name+ ' ' + this.surname;
}
2019-11-05 14:24:00 +03:00
Mustafa Kemal Tuna
7e3e74fa5b
"syntactic sugar" instead of "syntax sugar"
historically and in general use this phenomena is called as "syntactic sugar". I think we can change it for understand-ability and engineering convention.

https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/s/syntactic-sugar.htm
2019-11-05 13:50:42 +03:00
Violet Bora Lee
3ffa0beab0 minor fixes 2019-11-03 22:14:28 +09:00
Richard Zhang
487c317c06
fix mini typo 2019-10-31 15:55:57 -04:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
df58d3f543
Merge pull request #1513 from hrodward/patch-31
Update article.md
2019-10-30 23:37:34 +03:00
hrodward
028b408c29
Update article.md
Updated based on comments
2019-10-29 22:04:43 +01:00
Ilya Kantor
86891b9fd7
Merge pull request #1514 from hrodward/patch-32
Update task.md
2019-10-25 14:16:33 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
9909b908da minor 2019-10-25 13:31:06 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
072fa7d7ac minor 2019-10-25 13:13:21 +03:00
hrodward
0007368b32
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-25 11:08:52 +02:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
7f28d56117
Update article.md (#1507)
Update article.md
2019-10-24 12:05:58 +03:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
31d96a3ea9
Update article.md (#1509)
Update article.md
2019-10-24 12:05:24 +03:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
373a305248
Update article.md (#1510)
Update article.md
2019-10-24 12:04:26 +03:00
Alexey Pyltsyn
fab771fc0c
Update article.md (#1511)
Update article.md
2019-10-24 12:03:44 +03:00
hrodward
eb2b327aec
Update task.md 2019-10-24 11:03:21 +02:00
hrodward
c4914ae803
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-24 11:02:10 +02:00
hrodward
ad939bb80b
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-23 15:32:21 +02:00
hrodward
6f8ad3c1e3
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-23 15:23:34 +02:00
hrodward
ab55453e15
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-23 12:13:02 +02:00
hrodward
b6404a6c9b
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-23 08:08:19 +02:00
hrodward
00ebc8185b
Update article.md
Grammar suggestions
2019-10-22 14:37:34 +02:00
Ilya Kantor
7460eeba48 fixes 2019-10-11 10:46:30 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
3073a5ca6d fixes 2019-10-11 10:45:55 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
773cc06a3b fixes 2019-10-11 10:45:13 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
3cc9734143 fixes 2019-10-11 10:43:04 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
33642d3643 fixes 2019-10-11 10:42:58 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
f49e438e50 fixes 2019-10-11 10:40:41 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
dacfefc716 fixes 2019-10-11 10:38:12 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
59b5530053 fixes 2019-10-11 10:38:02 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
c9eea4d0bf fixes 2019-10-11 10:00:53 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
db0407b9f6
Merge pull request #1420 from paroche/patch-49
Update article.md
2019-10-11 09:15:20 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
7418213b66 re-import images from Sketch (no changes) 2019-10-10 17:08:16 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
59e01a7b41
Merge pull request #1421 from paroche/patch-51
Update article.md
2019-10-10 10:59:18 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
32c2432f95
Merge branch 'master' into patch-52 2019-10-10 10:55:49 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
b050edecbc
Merge pull request #1430 from paroche/patch-53
Update article.md
2019-10-10 10:55:22 +03:00
Ilya Kantor
ef44485218
Merge pull request #1432 from paroche/patch-56
Update article.md
2019-10-10 10:53:47 +03:00
paroche
cd1a23b9bd
Update article.md
Summary -- adding 'adding' and 'happening'.
2019-10-08 19:14:36 -06:00
paroche
5c11c5458c
Update article.md
listen to -> listen for
some punctuation, little words
2019-10-08 19:03:36 -06:00
paroche
e4c81a6af5
Update article.md
allows to -> allows us to
2019-10-08 18:43:57 -06:00
paroche
b9668eee3c
Update article.md
Events is -> Events are
2019-10-08 18:41:25 -06:00
paroche
f889f3ed43
Update article.md
'That's funny' -> 'It's funny'
2019-10-06 22:14:58 -06:00
paroche
24d5411a0e
Update article.md
and -> or, methods -> methods

I also have a question on the subject of this sentence (should this be a separate discussion entry?):
In the "Extending built-in classes" article, in the "No static inheritance in built-ins" subsection, one finds:

"But built-in classes are an exception. They don’t inherit statics from each other.

For example, both Array and Date inherit from Object, so their instances have methods from Object.prototype. But Array.[[Prototype]] does not reference Object, so there’s no Array.keys() and Date.keys() static methods."

In the "Extending built-in classes" article, in the "No static inheritance in built-ins" subsection, one finds:

"But built-in classes are an exception. They don’t inherit statics from each other.

For example, both Array and Date inherit from <code>Object</code>, so their instances have methods from <code>Object.prototype</code>. But <code>Array.[[Prototype]]</code> does not reference <code>Object</code>, so there’s no <code>Array.keys()</code> and <code>Date.keys()</code> static methods."

This is a subject of some curiosity for me. Through a little testing, I believe I have found that, in fact <code>Array.[[Prototype]]</code> DOES, however, reference <code>Function.prototype</code>, i.e. <code>Array.__proto__ === Function.prototype</code> (<code>true</code>). (As does <code>Date.[[Prototype]]</code>). Is there someplace where this is explained? (Preferably in a way an intelligent 11-year-old could understand?).
2019-10-06 21:53:42 -06:00