On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:04:27 +0100, Jason Mulligan
jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com wrote:
return ((arg % 2) === 0) ? true : false;
Just on general principle, the ? true : false part is completely
unnecessary. The condition
is already a boolean, so just do:
return ((arg %
On Mar 19, 5:47 pm, Jared Hirsch ja...@jaredhirsch.com wrote:
I've only written JS to run inside browsers and server-side V8. I'd love it
if you could share some examples of the differences between native and host
objects :-)
Well, my original statement was borne mostly out of frustration
Hey all,
I'm playing around with contentEditable and I'm current working with
styling (bold, italic, etc...) of the current selection
(window.getSelection()). Now, I know I can do this via
document.execCommand (in certain browsers), but I'd like to implement
my own method. I can easily apply a
I'm misunderstanding something about global scope in javascript, and node.js
in particular.
I have a global data structure which drives my entire (small) node.js app.
For debugging, I wanted to be able to send a message to the app that
triggers dumping this struct to the console.
code is like:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:26 PM, tim perkis t...@perkis.com wrote:
Is there something I'm not understanding about global scope?
Maybe the fact that there is none :) Not in node in the classic sense
anyways.
I guess I would monkey patch your own object for debugging and just assign
whatever
In Node.js the global object is called `global`, but you rarely need
to interact with it, and in most cases you shouldn't. If you need
something that is modularized make your own module, and include it
with the `require` function. And on initialization of that module you
may send it your from the
Oh, and you don't have to take my word for it:
Kangax, What’s wrong with extending the DOM, 5 April 2010
http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/
Very nice article and discussion beneath it, thanks for pointing this out.
But I still think that extending
2011/3/21 Jarek Foksa ja...@kiwi-themes.com:
Oh, and you don't have to take my word for it:
Kangax, What’s wrong with extending the DOM, 5 April 2010
http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/
Very nice article and discussion beneath it, thanks for pointing this out.
Hi,
I wrote a little utility to help out with checking status of objects.
More specifically, checking their conformance with a signature that
you provide along with the check.
It is partly meant to help out when expecting quacker objects to be
sent as parameters to your functions - you know, to
As I've said in your comments section, I think this is a really good
idea. We need to get away from the old instanceof/constructor thing,
and fully embrace duck-typing. This looks a nice way of formalising
that.
On 21 March 2011 14:33, npup petter.env...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a little
Hi Peter,
You're right, I didn't give much context did I... Here it is:
My primary goal is to make the code above testable. I've gotten into a
habit of externalizing instantiable dependencies (e.g var window = new
Window(); var house = new House(window);). This helps when unit-
testing
11 matches
Mail list logo
