Subject: Better Than Botox -

From: 4 Weeks to Flawless Skin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:22:52 -0700

DocOz has exclusive goes behind the gates of Beverly Hills.... 
He's showing us how to look 20 years younger the Celeb way

In just 1 MONTH: 

** DocOz figured out a way to take 20-years off your face **
It took one determined doctor to figure out Celebs were secretly doing.

Heres the explanation for this insane transformations in Hollywood ->

/ http://www.pepkop.com/Oz/Skincare/20yrs/younger.video

-to modify message settings - with/ 
Alert System Notifications-one one zero sevenValeria Dr.
Marion, TX 78124 or http://www.pepkop.com/jhg3/sng03t.sngo4
This is a very elegant way to build a usable object structure without having to import anything. I was using Resig's class system, but I may like this better. Thank you.   Tim Scollick Sep 3 '13 at 15:55
5The issue with this approach is that every time you create a new Animal instance it's going to redefine the functions rather than only defining them once with prototype.   Justin Oct 14 '13 at 17:29
@Justin Is it really that bad though? I mean is the performance issue noticeable? I mean, angularJS uses this approach as well, so I would think it might be ok? I am having problems with inheritance in my NodeJS script and this looks like it could be the solution. Thanks liammclennan for pointing this out.   Tom Feb 13 at 1:42I actually watched that series and found it really interesting. I was very much interested, though, in getting a sampling of implementations from a variety of people.   Karim Dec 23 '08 at 18:31
10	Is it just me? How the heck is this more elegant? I would call function definitions with actual 'strings' as names many things, but elegant is not one of them...   fgysin Jan 16 '13 at 12:28
@fgysin I take it you haven't worked much with reflection, then. Accessing/assigning properties of objects using string names is a very powerful ability if you need dynamic binding or execution or the like. In fact, it's used extensively for runtime binding of event handlers (see devel And here's an example of object[name] = func, from the jQuery source   JAB Jul 2 '13 at 19:03@JAB, but reflection is the exception, not the rule. With the above method, you have to declare all your methods with strings.   Kirk Woll Dec 22 '13 at 17:05 @KirkWoll True enough, at least with Jarek's method. The "proper" way of dynamically/reflectively creating properties in JavaScript that can be accessed either as strings or with dot notation (assuming a valid identifier) is to use Object.defineProperty, which gives you lots of different options for how you want to declare a property (even more than with properties defined in object literals). You can even use this within functions assigned this way due t
 o how JavaScript context works. Object.build = function(o) {
   var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
   function F() {
      if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
         o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
      }
   }
   F.prototype = o
   return new F()
}
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}  // For example

var userB = {
    init: function(nameParam) {
        this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
        this.name = nameParam;
    },
    sayHello: function() {
        console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
    }
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob');  // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();The obj.instancevar1 = var1 line isn't necessary, since the inner object will have access to getSomeObj()'s parameters.   Triptych Dec 22 '08 at 23:28
Wow. That makes my brain hurt but there is a certain elegance to it. So the "obj.instancevar1 = var1" part is the beginning of a sort of constructor, i suppose?   Karim Dec 22 '08 at 23:28
Just saw Triptych's comment. I see. So, you could just do something like "instancevar1: var1" where the inner object is being instantiated.   Karim Dec 22 '08 at 23:29
Exactly... when you use {} to define an object, it has access to variables that are currently in scope.   Sam Dec 22 '08 at 23:32
Up to Python 2.1, old-style classes were the only flavour available to the user. The concept of (old-style) class is unrelated to the concept of type: if x is an instance of an old-style class, then x.__class__ designates the class of x, but type(x) is always <type 'instance'>. This reflects the fact that all old-style instances, independently of their class, are implemented with a single built-in type, called instance.
New-style classes were introduced in Python 2.2 to unify classes and types. A new-style class neither more nor less than a user-defined type. If x is an instance of a new-style class, then type(x) is the same as x.__class__.
The major motivation for introducing new-style classes is to provide a unified object model with a full meta-model. It also has a number of immediate benefits, like the ability to subclass most built-in types, or the introduction of "descriptors", which enable computed properties.
For compatibility reasons, classes are still old-style by default. New-style classes are created by specifying another new-style class (i.e. a type) as a parent class, or the "top-level type" object if no other parent is needed. The behaviour of new-style classes differs from that of old-style classes in a number of important details in addition to what type returns. Some of these changes are fundamental to the new object model, like the way special methods are invoked. Others are "fixes" that could not be implemented before for compatibility concerns, like the method resolution order in case of multiple inheritance.Python 3 only has new-style classes. No matter if you subclass from object or not, classes are new-style in Python 3. It is howeve  	  	
Also, there is no "private" keyword, so even outside of getSomeObj() you can get/set instancevar1. Once you get closures and "this" keyword, you are golden. Javascript is quite a beautiful and flexible language.   Sam Dec 22 '08 at 23:3I will agree with the flexible. I'm not sold on the beautiful yet.   Karim Dec 23 '08 at 0:02
7With this approach you loose the ability to inherit, and since you aren't using obj.prototype.something you are defining the functions every time you are using the object = more memory and slower.   some Dec 23 '08 at 4:10