http://blogs.msdn.com/irenak/archive/2007/04/26/sysk-337-javascript-should-you-define-functions-inside-a-prototype-or-outside.aspxYesterday’s post described three ways to extend an existing type. It occurred to me that there is one more, slightly different mechanism, for defining a prototype function… you can think of it as Method 2-b. Consider the following: function TestClass(param1)en-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/irenak/archive/2007/04/26/sysk-337-javascript-should-you-define-functions-inside-a-prototype-or-outside.aspx#2290734Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:00:13 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:2290734Bruce<p>Doesn't that blow away any existing stuff in the prototype? &nbsp;Could you do something like this instead:</p> <p>function TestClass(param1)</p> <p>{</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;this._param1 = param1;</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;TestClass.prototype.get_param1 = function TestClass$get_param1()</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;{</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;return this._param1;</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;}</p> <p>}</p>http://blogs.msdn.com/irenak/archive/2007/04/26/sysk-337-javascript-should-you-define-functions-inside-a-prototype-or-outside.aspx#2291697Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:21:03 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:2291697irenak<p>You can use commans as a function separator, e.g.</p> <p>TestClass.prototype = </p> <p>{</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;get_param1: TestClass$get_param1,</p> <p> &nbsp; &nbsp;set_param1: TestClass$set_param1</p> <p>} &nbsp;</p> <p>Having said that, your solution would work as well :)</p>