Hi Fran
shameless-self-promotion
You could go for completely independent PubSub implementatations as
well, I wrote one:
https://github.com/mroderick/PubSubJS
http://roderick.dk/blog/2010/10/12/introducing-pubsubjs-a-library-for-doing-publish-subscribe-in-javascript/
Looks great MRoderick, light and much quicker than jQuery... I'm doing
some test with it. Thanks
On 04/02/11 10:03, MRoderick wrote:
Hi Fran
shameless-self-promotion
You could go for completely independent PubSub implementatations as
well, I wrote one:
https://github.com/mroderick/PubSubJS
On Feb 4, 11:03 am, MRoderick mor...@roderick.dk wrote:
Hi Fran
shameless-self-promotion
You could go for completely independent PubSub implementatations as
well, I wrote one:
On Feb 3, 1:38 pm, Fran m...@fran.ie wrote:
I like this really tiny but clever plugin. I'll definitely keep it in
mine, but still I have the question whether using $(document) or
$('body') makes any different. Any idea ?
Thanks
On 03/02/11 12:12, Mads Erik Forberg wrote:
Den 03.02.2011
I cut the 1.0 branch of the lib last night. On DELETE or POST an ETag
header will be returned to the Server. There's before and after
events for all HTTP actions, as well as undocumented beforeXHR and
afterXHR for specific developer use cases, e.g. if you need to track
when a resource is accessed
I'm setting ExtJS form values in one of their ubiquitous config
objects based on JSON data from an Ajax call.
For currency fields I am calling toFixed(2) on the numbers such as:
jsonObj.shippingAndHandling.toFixed(2)
jsonObj.totalDueToday.toFixed(2)
Etcetera
But I have a requirement to default
On Feb 4, 10:37 am, Acaz Souza Pereira acazso...@gmail.com wrote:
JavaScript is the next
SNIP
I consider this spam
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
I think that links to blog posts such as Web Development Sucks,
Javascript Must Die, and Javascript is the Next C are spams or
troll posts.
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google
2011/2/4 jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com:
I'm setting ExtJS form values in one of their ubiquitous config
objects based on JSON data from an Ajax call.
For currency fields I am calling toFixed(2) on the numbers such as:
jsonObj.shippingAndHandling.toFixed(2)
Actually you can just say
(0).toFixed(2);
Primitives get temporarily coerced to their object wrappers when faced
with attribute or function calls. I've never yet had to use new
Number() but there may yet be a scenario
On Feb 4, 7:51 am, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm setting
Languages constantly evolve; new languages appear based on previous
levels of abstraction. As engineers we /control complexity/ - that's the
main purpose of programming. Solving a task we should have the ability
(techniques) to solve it in the /easy manner/. Until our current
languages are
I'm closing this topic because it's not productive at all. Please
everyone, let's focus on solving real problems, not bickering over
personal feelings about libraries.
Rey
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
I agree with you 100% which is why I've closed out the topic. It's
digressed into an unproductive sinkhole of comments and we need to
focus on solving problems on JSMentors.
I'm also going to be on the lookout for this type of trolling going
forward.
Rey...
On Feb 4, 10:54 am, jemptymethod
only for iteration would you be concerned with the casting; almost
always for strings and ops like 'indexOf()'.
On Feb 4, 11:06 am, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually you can just say
(0).toFixed(2);
Primitives get temporarily coerced to their object wrappers when faced
with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/4/11 9:51 AM, jemptymethod wrote:
I'm setting ExtJS form values in one of their ubiquitous config
objects based on JSON data from an Ajax call.
For currency fields I am calling toFixed(2) on the numbers such as:
On Feb 4, 10:06 am, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I've never yet had to use new
Number() but there may yet be a scenario
[...]
If you want a consistent way to evaluate and enforce the type of
individual values through the instanceof operator, this would be the
approach to
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Rey Bango reyba...@gmail.com wrote:
Please, let's focus on technical discussions here and stop with the
posting to links that only spark up non-productive debates and add no
value to JSMentors..
You mean stick to the everlasting flow of questions about jQuery
Agree!
2011/2/4 Balázs Galambosi galambal...@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Rey Bango reyba...@gmail.com wrote:
Please, let's focus on technical discussions here and stop with the
posting to links that only spark up non-productive debates and add no
value to JSMentors..
You
On Feb 4, 1:24 pm, Balázs Galambosi galambal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Rey Bango reyba...@gmail.com wrote:
Please, let's focus on technical discussions here and stop with the
posting to links that only spark up non-productive debates and add no
value to JSMentors..
On Sat, February 5, 2011 7:51 am, jemptymethod wrote:
Between the spam and your (yes, you) trolling JSMentors risks
devolving into the noise-to-signal festival that is
comp.lang.javascript
A great way to not have this happen is not to respond to trolls. If you're in
it for attention and you
I want to delete a couple of object properties, but first save those
properties, then add them back after I'm done processing the object
*without* those properties.
But I can't do the following, when I log the object to the console,
it's apparent the properties didn't get deleted, presumably
Hi Balazs. Yes, Dmitry's reply was great which is why I didn't remove
it. What I don't want is to have every post turn into an op-ed piece
that then degrades into useless debates. I've seen that happen on too
many other forums and since Asen and I *created* this group, we're
going to be extra
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
All well and good. But here's the thing. I don't *need* this group:
my Javascript chops already get managers of frameworks like ExtJS and
YUI interested in hiring me.
Here's the thing. This list is about helping
unsubsribe
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:51 PM, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
And the trollish insinuation behind your remark is that I am not
intelligent. But if you read between the lines you'd realize I'm
trying to open a discussion as to whether these posts are spam.
I'm sorry I've only
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 4, 2:10 pm, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to delete a couple of object properties, but first save those
properties, then add them back after I'm done processing the object
*without* those
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:10:05 +0100, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com
wrote:
I want to delete a couple of object properties, but first save those
properties, then add them back after I'm done processing the object
*without* those properties.
Seems reasonable.
But I can't do the
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:51 PM, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm setting ExtJS form values in one of their ubiquitous config
objects based on JSON data from an Ajax call.
For currency fields I am calling toFixed(2) on the numbers such as:
jsonObj.shippingAndHandling.toFixed(2)
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
If you want a consistent way to evaluate and enforce the type of
individual values through the instanceof operator, this would be the
approach to use.
In that case, you'll rarely have a meaningful class
On 2/4/11, Lasse Reichstein reichsteinatw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
[...]
It's generally faster to access the characters directly on the primitive
string value, e.g.,
var s = myString;
alert(s[2]); // 'S'
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Michael Geary m...@mg.to wrote:
The first two cases are identical to each other, because window === this
when your code runs in the global scope. And as you noted, it is not an
error to attempt to dereference a nonexistent property of an object - you
simply get
http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/understanding-undefined-and-preventing-referenceerrors/
On Feb 4, 4:16 pm, Jason Persampieri ja...@persampieri.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Michael Geary m...@mg.to wrote:
The first two cases are identical to each other, because
Hi. I am still reading up on this but here are some more tests I have
run:
console.log(typeof(foo) === 'undefined'); // true -- doesn't raise
reference error.
foo;// reference
error even without the call to console.log
--
To
By the way I am running these tests in the spidermonkey shell and in
chrome using the dev tools. I substitute console.log for print() in
the spidermonkey shell.
On Feb 4, 10:54 pm, mcot atm1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi. I am still reading up on this but here are some more tests I have
run:
Yes, that's correct. The typeof operator does not require its operand to be
defined. When its operand is not defined, typeof returns the string
'undefined'. All correct, expected behavior.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, mcot atm1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi. I am still reading up on this but here
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:54 PM, mcot atm1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi. I am still reading up on this but here are some more tests I have
run:
console.log(typeof(foo) === 'undefined'); // true -- doesn't raise
reference error.
foo;
36 matches
Mail list logo
