Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Regards Russ Michaels From my mobile On 13 Oct 2011 20:28, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348179 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I dont think your ever going to win against a dictionaryophile dave. Regards Russ Michaels From my mobile On 15 Oct 2011 00:40, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for Mac 2011 Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are fashionable. Actually, I'm not much of a Mac guy, but I do have to support them, and it's what I had in front of me at the time. Today, I have MS Word 2010 on Windows 7, which also recognizes it as a word. If we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd replace it perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition. But none of those words really provide the same meaning. It does have a fairly specific meaning. There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for Troll bait. Perhaps you should consult your dictionary. There's no trolling going on here on either side, just off-topic arguing. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348180 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Also not a word. -- Shu Ha Ri: Agile and .NET blog http://www.bifrost.com.au/ On 15 October 2011 17:58, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote: dictionaryophile ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348181 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
The internet seems to think its a real word http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended up in the dictionary. I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64 hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words. -- Russ Michaels www.bluethunderinternet.com : Business hosting services solutions www.cfmldeveloper.com : ColdFusion developer community www.michaels.me.uk : my blog www.cfsearch.com : ColdFusion search engine sky ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348139 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for Mac 2011 Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are fashionable. Anyway, if you feel intimidated by your spellchecker, perhaps you have issues that go beyond this discussion. :) I see you've got a keen sense of humour Dave. Not to be outdone by your ability to spot sarcasm. Sure, and in any case I'm not inclined to take presentation advice from someone who thinks words come from dictionaries. Sure Dave, that's neither here nor there. Continue on your path, it seems comfortable. I'll note that you didn't answer the question I asked earlier, though - what word would you use in its place? You're right Dave. I did miss that. What would I use in it's place? In the context that it's used in the original statement here? Or in the context of what all the dictionary references that have been posted? The evidence given to prove the existence of truthiness (there's that squiqqle again in Chrome) in no way relates to Truthy and Falsy, so if we're talking about the original statement I wouldn't replace it, I'd just use it correctly. If we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd replace it perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition. There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for Troll bait. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348141 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving that flag and move on mate. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote: The internet seems to think its a real word http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended up in the dictionary. I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64 hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words. -- Russ Michaels www.bluethunderinternet.com : Business hosting services solutions www.cfmldeveloper.com: ColdFusion developer community www.michaels.me.uk : my blog www.cfsearch.com : ColdFusion search engine sky ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348142 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
Finally! -Original Message- From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:bo...@acoderslife.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:34 PM To: cf-talk Subject: RE: Shouldn't these statements work? Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com http://cf4em.com ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348158 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
what on earth are u talking about ? On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Yes Russ. You worked on Commodore thirty years ago. We get it. Stop waving that flag and move on mate. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote: The internet seems to think its a real word http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=wsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=truthiness Don't forget all the dumb words people have invented which have ended up in the dictionary. I even invented a couple myself back in the 80's in the Comoodore 64 hacking/demo era, which have now become everyday words. -- Russ Michaels www.bluethunderinternet.com : Business hosting services solutions www.cfmldeveloper.com : ColdFusion developer community www.michaels.me.uk : my blog www.cfsearch.com : ColdFusion search engine sky ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348166 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
In the Lisp communities, truthiness is a very commonly used word because Lisps typically have some specific true / false literals but also equate other things to true and false in conditionals. You'll here Lispers talk about truthy values and falsey values too. And Lisp's been around for over 50 years so there's a lot of precedence: http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+truthiness (I see this a lot in the Clojure community) Sean On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote: It sure is a word: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348167 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for Mac 2011 Ug. Mac. Now it makes sense. You likely also think black turtle necks are fashionable. Actually, I'm not much of a Mac guy, but I do have to support them, and it's what I had in front of me at the time. Today, I have MS Word 2010 on Windows 7, which also recognizes it as a word. If we're talking about the way it's cited in the evidence then I'd replace it perhaps with instinct, strong hunch, belief or intuition. But none of those words really provide the same meaning. It does have a fairly specific meaning. There's another five minutes I'll never get back. I'm such a sucker for Troll bait. Perhaps you should consult your dictionary. There's no trolling going on here on either side, just off-topic arguing. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348170 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
It sure is a word: Entry from US dictionary Like I said. Not a word. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348085 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
From Merriam-Webster: * truthiness The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. * On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: It sure is a word: Entry from US dictionary Like I said. Not a word. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348086 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006: http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: From Merriam-Webster: * truthiness The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348091 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
...which is an online survey. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dominic Watson watson.domi...@googlemail.com wrote: Interestingly enough, it was there word of the year in 2006: http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm On 13 October 2011 12:42, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: From Merriam-Webster: * truthiness The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348101 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
...which is an online survey. Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something, it would be a word. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348104 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: ...which is an online survey. Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something, it would be a word. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348108 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348111 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348114 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
In terms of language, what is right? I can say anything I want. Period. Whether you understand the meaning or not is inconsequential. Dave is right. Long live blutz and can be move the blutz on please? On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348115 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. There's no consensus among English speakers about flustrated, so, no, it is not yet a word. But if this changes over time, then, yes, it will be a word. http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/change.jsp (Some words are even created by mistake.) You can't really make an argument from authority when it comes to the existence of words. It just doesn't work. Again, this is all Linguistics 101 stuff. Shakespeare coined hundreds (thousands?) of words, many of which are in common usage today. Were they not words when he created them? If not, what makes them words now, the fact that they're recognized by dictionaries? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348117 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
And I always thought that flustrated was a combination of Flustered and Frustrated. -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:48 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. There's no consensus among English speakers about flustrated, so, no, it is not yet a word. But if this changes over time, then, yes, it will be a word. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348118 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously. You can use blutz and flustrated and destroy the Kings English all you want I guess. It's a free blutzing countryfication after all. Just don't get flustrated when people stop listening. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Raymond Camden raymondcam...@gmail.comwrote: In terms of language, what is right? I can say anything I want. Period. Whether you understand the meaning or not is inconsequential. Dave is right. Long live blutz and can be move the blutz on please? On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Sure they exist. However using a word, such as truthiness doesn't make it right. People also say flustrated, so since it exists, it's a word, it doesn't make it right. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. And, if it were not, I'd still be correct. This is Linguistics 101 stuff. Dictionaries don't create words, they list the words that are already in use. Words exists before dictionaries recognize them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348119 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously. ALL words are made up. It's just a matter of when they were made up. Right now, flustrated is recognized as a mistake. But that may not be the case in the future. Right now, truthiness is recognized as a word with a specific meaning. This doesn't require some blessing from on high. It happens over time, all by itself. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348120 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for using them incorrectly now, should it? Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not take you seriously. Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense: Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha. Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: What's right in language is subjective of course, but if you use words that are made up or illustrate a lack of understanding of the language you are trying to speak, such as flustrated, it hinders your ability to effectively communicate as well as your ability to be taken seriously. ALL words are made up. It's just a matter of when they were made up. Right now, flustrated is recognized as a mistake. But that may not be the case in the future. Right now, truthiness is recognized as a word with a specific meaning. This doesn't require some blessing from on high. It happens over time, all by itself. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348121 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for using them incorrectly now, should it? If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else). Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how language works. Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not take you seriously Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously. Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense: Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha. Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor. I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348122 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
and the utterly ridiculous txt speak is enough proof of that :-) On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for using them incorrectly now, should it? If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else). Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how language works. Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not take you seriously Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously. Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense: Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha. Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor. I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348123 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool. You use a world like flustrate for instance, and though people will understand what you mean, they'll make an assumption about your intelligence. Same as mixing up there/their/they're. Certainly people will understand you. However that doesn't make it effective communication. Effective communication isn't simply understand the meaning behind the message, but also respecting the message. That's my two cents anyway. Flame on Garth. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification for using them incorrectly now, should it? If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your objection to the word truthiness, which wasn't used incorrectly, and has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else). Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a reputable dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these sequences are not-words until some authority - the reputable dictionary - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how language works. Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. However when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not take you seriously Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously. Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense: Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? Hahaha. Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor. I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348124 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: If it were added to a reputable dictionary you would be absolutely correct. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote: ...which is an online survey. Words aren't managed through a central authority. They exist by consensus. If enough people started using blutz to mean something, it would be a word. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348125 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Sorry... I may be mistaken.. This STILL is a ColdFusion list.. Correct? On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote: I'd say Oxford is a more reputable dictionary than Webster. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348126 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Also: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness Entry from World dictionary Sorry, didn't mean to start a flame war. Just pointing out that it's definitely a recognized word. (Ducks) On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: It sure is a word: Entry from US dictionary Like I said. Not a word. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348127 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool. Really? Why do you say that? What word would you use instead of truthiness, to describe what people generally mean by that word? Why do you think that CEOs haven't heard of Steven Colbert? I spend quite a bit of my time communicating with people. I'm paid to do that among other things, and I think I do it pretty well. I meet with and talk to quite a few CEOs. And I would have no hesitation about using truthiness if that's the word that fits what I'm trying to describe. And I'm quite confident that I wouldn't look like a fool. I'm CTO of a successful software company. If someone appropriately used that word in a presentation to me, I wouldn't consider that person a fool either. As for obtuseness and idealism, it seems to me that these describe you better than me in this case. You're describing the world as you'd like it to be - words being right or wrong according to some unquestionable authority. I'm describing the world as it is - dictionaries observe the language, they don't create it. You seem unable to acknowledge this, which strikes me as being ... obtuse. Finally, to bring this around to something that might be relevant for programmers: this seems to be a fairly common failing of programmers, in my experience. Computer languages, after all, do have the sort of rigidity and exactness that you seem to expect in human languages - if you use the wrong word, things simply don't work. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348128 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
Say goodbye to your thread Rick. :-/ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com http://cf4em.com ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348129 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house. In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word right now seems to be mocking me.) We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation would make you look a fool. MG ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348130 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness was a word... crap! .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com http://cf4em.com -Original Message- From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house. In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word right now seems to be mocking me.) We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation would make you look a fool. MG ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348132 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Indeed. In the same way I admit to my daughter that she's right when she tells me it's Pig Newtons, not Fig Newtons. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Bobby Hartsfield bo...@acoderslife.comwrote: Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness was a word... crap! .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com http://cf4em.com -Original Message- From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house. In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word right now seems to be mocking me.) We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation would make you look a fool. MG ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348133 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
All that for a dollar? Sounds like a very expensive dollar. G! - runs for cover On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Bobby Hartsfield bo...@acoderslife.comwrote: Now I owe Dave $1. He bet me that he could get you to admit truthiness was a word... crap! .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com http://cf4em.com -Original Message- From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:59 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house. In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word right now seems to be mocking me.) We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation would make you look a fool. MG ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348134 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
I can only imagine what a game of scrabble must be like at your house. It must be nonexistent, as I don't play Scrabble. That said, my understanding of the rules is that you use a specific dictionary as an authoritative answer to whether you can play a word. That's fine, it's just a game, and games have specific rules. Natural languages don't have such specific rules. There's no referee to call foul when a word is coined in a way not to your liking. In the interest of moving forward and freeing up my spare time I'll concede to you that truthiness is a word. (Even though the red squiggle under the word right now seems to be mocking me.) Just for kicks, I tested this in TextEdit, TextWrangler, and MS Word for Mac 2011 (the three text editors I happened to have handy this minute). All three spellcheckers recognized the word. It's recognized by my spellcheckers, and not by yours! Black is white, up is down! Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! We must live in parallel universes - in one universe it's a word, and in another it's not! Anyway, if you feel intimidated by your spellchecker, perhaps you have issues that go beyond this discussion. And no one's holding a gun to your head to make you reply - your spare time is your own to spend how you like. We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not using it in a presentation would make you look a fool. Sure, and in any case I'm not inclined to take presentation advice from someone who thinks words come from dictionaries. I'll note that you didn't answer the question I asked earlier, though - what word would you use in its place? Feel free to ignore this question if you want to move forward and free up your spare time. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348136 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
It sure is a word: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote: Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348076 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
It sure is a word: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us That is 100% PURE Awesome. w00t!!! G! On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Brian Kotek brian...@gmail.com wrote: It sure is a word: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/truthiness?region=us -- Gerald Guido http://www.myinternetisbroken.com -- We all shine on. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348077 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
I checked out the link: and I got it...
Not just comparing string to string, but for any other
type operators and their values.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:44 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct?
That is not correct. The identity operator is intended to compare the
identity of two object references.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Comparison_O
perators
For example:
// define a custom object constructor
function Thing(arg) {
this.property = arg;
return this;
}
var obj1 = new Object(...);
var obj2 = obj1; // pass obj1 to obj2 by reference
if (obj1 === obj2) ... // should evaluate to true
var obj3 = new Thing(some_arg);
var obj4 = new Thing(some_arg);
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should evaluate to false, even though both
objects have the same type and contain the same value(s)
obj4.property = obj3.property // pass obj3.property by value
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should still evaluate to false
Now, while this is how the identity operator is intended to work,
there are some variations in its actual implementation, such that it
will just compare object types and values in some JS engines. Take a
look here:
http://blog.agilejedi.com/2008/09/javascript-equality-versus-identity.html
In any case, there's no point to using it when comparing two string
literals.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347976
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Truthiness?
Oh Lord.
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his fake words are
now used in programming discussion.
The end is nigh.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
wrote:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage ===
'index.cfm'
)
{ window.location =
'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === ''
)
{ window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
My first code, that still seems valid, was:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' (currentPage ===
'index.cfm'
|| currentPage === '') )
{ window.location =
'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
else { window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
to search-properties.cfm.
These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
and the conditions are met.
They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
URL is just the domain name.
I've tried every version of this I can think of.
Clues, anyone?
Rick
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347933
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his fake words are now used in programming discussion. Truthy and Falsy were used to describe dynamic boolean expressions long before Colbert coined his specific definition of truthiness. Expanding a truthy and testing its truthiness is a natural progression of the concept even pre-Colbert. So, I wouldn't take a use of that word in a programming sense as a political statement. :) -Justin ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347937 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Truthiness is not a word. It may seem like a natural progression, but that doesn't make it exist. I stand by my statement. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Justin Scott leviat...@darktech.orgwrote: Steven Colbert has made it so far into pop culture that his fake words are now used in programming discussion. Truthy and Falsy were used to describe dynamic boolean expressions long before Colbert coined his specific definition of truthiness. Expanding a truthy and testing its truthiness is a natural progression of the concept even pre-Colbert. So, I wouldn't take a use of that word in a programming sense as a political statement. :) -Justin ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347939 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm' As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two object references point to the same object. A literal string won't work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're comparing it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347941 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working. My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct? -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm' As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two object references point to the same object. A literal string won't work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're comparing it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347947 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
No, `===` is for comparing _objects_, as Dave said. :-) On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.comwrote: I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working. My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct? -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm' As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two object references point to the same object. A literal string won't work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're comparing it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347948 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Not necessarily. It should be used when you want to make sure the value AND the object type both match. On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote: I'm not entirely sure about the === operator, but it's working. My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct? -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:39 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm' As everyone's already mentioned, this comparison operator is not an equality operator. It's an identity operator - it's used to see if two object references point to the same object. A literal string won't work here, as it's not the same object as the object to which you're comparing it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ http://training.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347949 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
My understanding from what I've read is that the === operator
should be used only when comparing strings. Is that not correct?
That is not correct. The identity operator is intended to compare the
identity of two object references.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Comparison_Operators
For example:
// define a custom object constructor
function Thing(arg) {
this.property = arg;
return this;
}
var obj1 = new Object(...);
var obj2 = obj1; // pass obj1 to obj2 by reference
if (obj1 === obj2) ... // should evaluate to true
var obj3 = new Thing(some_arg);
var obj4 = new Thing(some_arg);
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should evaluate to false, even though both
objects have the same type and contain the same value(s)
obj4.property = obj3.property // pass obj3.property by value
if (obj3 === obj4) ... // should still evaluate to false
Now, while this is how the identity operator is intended to work,
there are some variations in its actual implementation, such that it
will just compare object types and values in some JS engines. Take a
look here:
http://blog.agilejedi.com/2008/09/javascript-equality-versus-identity.html
In any case, there's no point to using it when comparing two string literals.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347952
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
)
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === ''
)
{ window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
My first code, that still seems valid, was:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' (currentPage === 'index.cfm'
|| currentPage === '') )
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
else { window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
to search-properties.cfm.
These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
and the conditions are met.
They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
URL is just the domain name.
I've tried every version of this I can think of.
Clues, anyone?
Rick
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347928
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ... Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't the same then it will evaluate to false even if the string values match. You might consider changing that to a value comparison as == rather than the value and type comparison. -Just ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347929 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
Good suggestions, guys, but I was purposefully using a string operator to be very specific in the code. (The '==' didn't work, either) This is working... using 3 statements and avoid the use of the or '||' operator. Thanks! Rick -Original Message- From: Justin Scott [mailto:leviat...@darktech.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:37 PM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work? if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' ... Hi Rick, remember that in JavaScript the === operator checks for value AND variable type, so if the internal variable types aren't the same then it will evaluate to false even if the string values match. You might consider changing that to a value comparison as == rather than the value and type comparison. -Just ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347930 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
Try logging each variable and it's type using typeOf. That'll help you move int
the right direction.
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Lists li...@commadelimited.com wrote:
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
)
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === ''
)
{ window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
My first code, that still seems valid, was:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' (currentPage === 'index.cfm'
|| currentPage === '') )
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
else { window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
to search-properties.cfm.
These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
and the conditions are met.
They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
URL is just the domain name.
I've tried every version of this I can think of.
Clues, anyone?
Rick
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347931
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Shouldn't these statements work?
I've had to go to three if statements to get this to
work. It didn't want to let me use the or '||' operator.
Also, had to start using != in one statement.
Here's what's working properly whether the modal menu
(smartphone website) is being used on the homepage,
'index.cfm' or '':
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
)
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === ''
)
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage != 'index.cfm'
currentPage != '' )
{ window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
-Original Message-
From: Lists [mailto:li...@commadelimited.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:36 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't these statements work?
The triple === in JavaScript at least is a strict comparison. It not only
checks for truthiness, but that both sides are the same type.
Have you tried simple eq or ==
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
wrote:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === 'index.cfm'
)
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' currentPage === ''
)
{ window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm';
}
My first code, that still seems valid, was:
if ( activeLinkID === 'search_properties' (currentPage ===
'index.cfm'
|| currentPage === '') )
{ window.location = 'modules/search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
else { window.location = '../search-properties/search-properties.cfm'
}
No syntax errors, but the page is not changed
to search-properties.cfm.
These lines are bypassed as if conditions are not met,
and the conditions are met.
They work if the URL ends in 'index.cfm', but not if the
URL is just the domain name.
I've tried every version of this I can think of.
Clues, anyone?
Rick
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:347932
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
