On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, austincheney austin.che...@travelocity.com
wrote:
[...]
3) I ALWAYS use anonymous functions assigned to variables. There was
some quote that went around from Brendan Eich that the function is
too long and makes functional coding diffecult to read, but because
Function call — which `foo()` an `nsui()` are — has little to do with
`Function.prototype.call`. Function call (such as `foo()`) delegates to
internal [[Call]] method of whatever object you're invoking. In case of
`foo()` it's [[Call]] of `foo` function object. Unless the implementation
you're
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:57 AM, mcot atm1...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to reassign eval but still be able to do indirect calls. Is
there any possible way to do this in chrome?
Not that I know of. If you reassign `eval` to something else, than call that
something else — that's an indirect eval
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 6:14 PM, mcot atm1...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some sample code below that generates a different result
between browsers. I *think* chrome is doing the wrong thing, but I
wanted to ask here first.
function func(param) {
console.log(param.x)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.comwrote:
Asen Bozhilov wrote:
[...]
It seems API is enough useful and convenient, I am
interested in the opinion of the others members, too.
Only one issue with:
merge = function(base, ext) {
//...
};
I
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
Very nice article Dmitry. I share your philosophy of more important
to understand the mechanics than judge it good or bad
Side note about FEs. I normally prefer over FDs, partly because they
make top down reading more
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;
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.comwrote:
Juriy Zaytsev :
But is it a bug really? As far as I know, web storage spec (
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/) makes no clarification on whether
interface members are writable; or enumerable/configurable
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.comwrote:
The last week I explored some things about `localStorage'. The most
interesting and meanwhile confusing things are described in two
articles about `localStorage':
URL:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Trygve Lie p...@trygve-lie.com wrote:
Hi
I'm working on a small and basic JavaScript introduction I'm going to
hold. In this introduction I would like to point to a good compatibility
table.
Personally I like kangax's ECMAScript 5 compatibility table:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 AM, fernando trasvina trasv...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 12/18/10, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
[...]
It is the `new` operator
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Lasse Reichstein
reichsteinatw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:39:00 +0100, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com
wrote:
__proto__ also appears to be marked as deprecated in current version of
corresponding MDN docs. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/18/10, Ezequiel ezequ...@ziggyism.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:37 am, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
var beget = (function() {
function F(){ };
return function(o) {
F.prototype = o;
return
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.comwrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
var beget = (function() {
function F(){ };
All good except for the extra empty statement there. AYK, semicolon is
not needed after the FD.
Yes! Thanks
14 matches
Mail list logo
