regardless of the wisdom of such a naming scheme, is the following valid?
var F = function() {
this.f1 = function() {}
}
F.f1 = function() {}
// "static" call
var v1 = F.f1();
// prototype call
var f = new F();
var v2 = f.f1();
it seems it should be ok since, for example, var and this variables within an object function do not share the same space.
Yes, that is valid.
In your example, F is a function which you assign a property called f1 which is a function itself. If you were to change the code to read f = new F(), then f is an object which inherits from F's prototype, but they're still two distinct objects.
F at its prototype (at least I find the wording confusing). It inherits from F's prototype...
It is valid.
Like the others have stated, there are no prototype related issues here.
You are attaching 2 propertyes to 2 different objects:
So, since F !== new F(), they are 2 different thing with different props.
If you want to make use of the prototypal inheritance, you can consider the following example:
var F = function(){}
// function visible to all of F's instances
F.prototype.f1 = function(){console.log("I'm inherited!");}
// a so called "static" function
F.f1 = function(){console.log("I'm static!");}
var instance1 = new F();
var instance2 = new F();
// function visible only to this instance of F
instance1.f1 = function(){console.log("I'm visible only to this instance of F");}
this.f1 = , whereas a truly "private" declaration would be var f1 =.
obj.method(), if the method is not defined in the current object (such as our "private"), javascript looks up obj's prototypal chain and searches for that method.
f1()invar F = function(){ this.f1(){...} }was identical toF.prototype.f1 = function(){...}F.prototypeis one object from which all new objects will inherit. But withthis.f1 = ...you are assigning the function to each new element (each element has its own function). It will look the same but the object structure is different. Have a look at the output (console) of this example: jsfiddle.net/fkling/5ewLe