On Mar 23, 2:35 am, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
There are still of course techniques
that are more difficult with this style, but they are not as bad as
I'd thought.
Am I right that this style would be more difficult?:
var results1 = mismatch(spec1, obj1),
2011/3/22 Mark McDonnell mark.m...@gmail.com:
I'm having a bizarre issue removing an event listener (this occurs in both
Firefox and Chrome).
If I run the following code via the console…
document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].addEventListener('click',
function(e){ alert(e); }, false);
Thank you very much, your argumentation makes perfect sense.
I find this type of discussions highly beneficial to the practice of
this language.
pedro
On Mar 23, 2:17 pm, Luke Smith lsm...@lucassmith.name wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Poetro wrote:
2011/3/23 pnbv
On Mar 23, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Tony Wang wrote:
Hi Smith ,
for my opinion , in your case
var doSomething = app.doSomething;
doSomething(); // boom if the 'this' references are left in tact.
I think it's a fault for invoker, If I am developing with it ,
I will not forget to use call or apply
Hi Smith,
if it's a util , it's better not to count on anthing , or at least only
Constant class only.
If in your case , app is kind of constant object , I could agree with you.
But at least it's more clear when you wrote a doSomething.call(app),
that means doSomething() need a app , that's the
On Mar 23, 11:43 pm, Poetro poe...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/23 pnbv p.bacelar.vasconce...@gmail.com:
Considering a single instance object:
app = {
foo: 'afoo',
bar: 'abar',
callbackLib: {
replyFoo: function () {
console.log(this.foo);
},
On Mar 24, 1:43 am, Poetro poe...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery adds a wrapper around callback functions, and also collects
them to data object.
It also adds a non-standard property so it can identify the element
that it added the listener to (which in IE means also adding an HTML
attribute).
