I will try check if there is something common in the rejected images.
--
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:
@simonO whats the difference between natualWidth and width ?
--
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/
There is a trick to make naturalWidth|Height work with IE by creating a new
Image object with the same src attribute and to check its width / height.
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a
Np, I only made it 'cause i read this thread and was bored at
work :) .. and saw the value in it afterwards. I revised it a little,
I recommend doing the same.
On Feb 16, 5:44 pm, Jason Persampieri ja...@persampieri.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
On 17.02.2011 1:44, Jason Persampieri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, CoffeeScript provides a convenient sugar for that:
obj.foo?.bar? and stuff?()
which desugars into
Hi guys,
I sometimes run into this doubt when I have to use someone else classes
or API. Let's see this example:
/* API or Class: */
var SomeOneElseClass = function (args) {/*...*/};
SomeOneElseClass.prototype = {
doSomething : function () {/*...*/},
doSomethingElse : function ()
Hi all,
I use the module pattern to keep the global object clean. Mostly, my
modules are completely independant, so I do not use the revealing module
pattern.
(function () {
function a () {}
function b () {}
}());
Now the question is, how do I unit-test function a and function b?
On Feb 17, 12:32 pm, Matthias Reuter m...@gweax.de wrote:
Hi all,
I use the module pattern to keep the global object clean. Mostly, my
modules are completely independant, so I do not use the revealing module
pattern.
(function () {
function a () {}
function b () {}
}());
Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
Scott Sauyet wrote:
I'm guessing that what Angus was suggesting with
| Michael, If you've gone that far why not just have Person have a
| getZip() method to encapsulate the null checking?
is the same thing I feel: you're trying to cram a Java/C# OO idiom
into
I thought about that the other day as well. It would be nice to have a
post-processor that automatically encapsulates an existing file
content with a custom prefix/postfix pair. The test case could work on
the file contents without worrying about accessibility while the
compiled version does not
I think there's a chapter on this in Christian Johansen's Test-Driven
JavaScript Development (tddjs.com). I'm not sure because I haven't got there
yet, and I don't have the book with me, but I'm fairly sure it addresses
this exact issue.
On 17 February 2011 12:32, Matthias Reuter m...@gweax.de
Also be sure to read this thread from earlier where Christian Johansen weighs
in on this directly:
http://groups.google.com/group/jsmentors/browse_thread/thread/da28fe220dea609/fd44ec9cf4223e03?hl=enlnk=gstq=testing#fd44ec9cf4223e03
From: jsmentors@googlegroups.com
On Feb 17, 8:04 am, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
As you or the OP
or anyone else creates something beyond trivial code you mentally have
some notion of types and contracts in your mind.
But the contracts I consider when programming in Java are very
Hi Loic,
I'm starting a project with Google Map, and for our necessities I'm
thinking about implementing a API that wraps Google Map API. I'm not
sure about extending Google Map classes because I'm afraid that if I
implement a method, let's call it methodA, and later on Google decides
to
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Jason Mulligan
jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com wrote:
Why is that called a Module Pattern? It's just closure?
No, that's the revealing pattern. It's the module pattern because all the
variables, functions and constructors he defines are in a new own scope,
which
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Jason Mulligan
jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com wrote:
That's hilarious ... do all javascript people just make up names for
ops and call it patterns?
Yes. We call it the imaginary pattern.
- peter
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors
Google Maps API classes are definitely not meant to be extended with your
own methods and properties. As you said, Google may later add a method or
property of the same name. Or there may be an internal method or property
you don't know about that conflicts with yours.
You are completely correct
You guys are silly. It's an anonymous function with sub-functions.
On Feb 17, 3:40 pm, Poetro poe...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/17 Jason Mulligan jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com:
That's hilarious ... do all javascript people just make up names for
ops and call it patterns?
a design pattern is a
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jason Mulligan
jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com wrote:
You guys are silly. It's an anonymous function with sub-functions.
Ah yes... the common Affwisseff pattern.
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
Extending is most useful in languages where function invocation is
constrained to the object hierarchy. In JavaScript there are no such
constraints, so you can simply wrap the 3rd party objects or invoke their
functions in situe with call or apply. I usually find either technique is
more
On Feb 17, 8:53 pm, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
It to omit initial example, but instead to take a some common abstract,
the last case with a function is useful for me. E.g.
function foo(callback) {
/* stuff */
callback callback(data);
}
or even:
lol, ok well if you guys want to name common ops i'll just smile and
nod. you probably know why it's been named; and i don't.
On Feb 17, 4:30 pm, Jason Persampieri ja...@persampieri.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jason Mulligan
jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com wrote:
You guys are
22 matches
Mail list logo
