On Dec 9, 1:30 am, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be great if people didn't answer with _completely_ wrong solutions.
Before you recommend an answer please run it in a JavaScript console to
check it works.
As an aside to those who said `this.a` it may time you learned how
On Dec 9, 5:27 am, Nick Morgan skilldr...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an example:
function makeAnObject() {
var outerThis = this;
return {
a: this,
b: function () {
return this;
}
};
}
When you call makeAnObject as a function, the `this` that `a`
On Nov 4, 5:13 pm, Rohit Mehta rohitrmeht...@gmail.com wrote:
How to fadeIn page only after the whole page loads(bg, images etc.)
I am buildinghttp://www.socialsupply.co
The page fades in before the content is loaded. I want the page to
fade in only after the content is loaded. I will be
On Nov 1, 7:06 pm, Anoop gupta.anoop.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
As per the MDN documentation:
A for...in loop does not iterate over non–enumerable properties.
Objects created from built–in constructors like Array and Object have
inherited non–enumerable properties from Object.prototype and
On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Jess Jacobs simulacran.h...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I ran into an interesting issue while trying to prove that adding string
concats to a long running string simply to fit the 80 char/line idea was
not a good thing.
On Oct 19, 10:58 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Jess Jacobs simulacran.h...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I ran into an interesting issue while trying to prove that adding string
concats to a long running string simply to fit the 80 char/line idea
On Aug 23, 11:06 pm, Nick Morgan skilldr...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The function declaration `createUniqueId` is effectively hoisted to
the top of the script, so it actually *is* defined before you add the
`counter` property to it.
Not a big fan of that expression (hoisted). It might be what
On Aug 21, 5:10 am, Peter van der Zee jsment...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Nick Morgan skilldr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys
Thought I'd share a little toy I just made, to see what you thought:
...
It gives you access to the value of private vars via a safe eval.
On Jul 20, 10:10 pm, Xavier MONTILLET xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
Oh. Never thought if that...
When i implement constructors that are lists somehow, i do this :
function Constructor( array ) {
Array.prototype.splice.apply( this, [ 0, 0 ].concat( array ) );
}
There are a few issus
On Jul 4, 7:34 pm, David Marrs d.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
P.S. Please let me know if my MUA is a bit rubbish for mailing lists. nbsp;I
noticed the formatting of my email in your quotes was a bit ugly.
I'm using Google Groups, your replies are not well formatted at all:
URL:
On Jun 29, 8:45 pm, Andrés Maneiro andres.mane...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm starting to develop a simple webpage intensive in data. Let me explain a
bit what I need:
- The front-end will be a simple webpage with several tables and one
combobox. The values in the tables will change
On Jul 2, 5:38 pm, David Marrs d.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 Jul 2011 01:13, Jason Mulligan lt;attac...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
yes i am. extjs/jquery are fantastic examples of this paradigm gone
wrong. the syntax ends up on multiple lines as you try to figure out
I think the issue is that
On Jul 2, 7:00 pm, Nick Morgan skilldr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2011 01:13, Jason Mulligan attac...@gmail.com wrote:
and, just to prove my point .. show me a built in function that
expects an object as a param.
Are you saying that we should be modelling our APIs on the ones
On Jun 21, 4:07 am, Jason Mulligan attac...@gmail.com wrote:
Considering the language, sending an object of args is going against
the convention of JavaScript due to laziness.
You've lost me. Are you saying passing an object is lazy?
--
Rob
--
To view archived discussions from the original
On Jun 17, 9:10 pm, xavierm02 xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Apparently, it's just a bit slower than normal parameters (in the worst case
where all paramaters change each time) :http://jsperf.com/parameters-incidence
There is something seriously wrong with those tests - is IE 8 really
On Jun 9, 9:30 am, Anton Kovalyov an...@kovalyov.net wrote:
I used the void operator today in a case when I needed to call a function,
discard its return value and then return undefined. I did that mostly to be
able to omit curly braces in the one-line if statement (i personally think
On Jun 9, 9:30 am, Anton Kovalyov an...@kovalyov.net wrote:
I used the void operator today in a case when I needed to call a function,
discard its return value and then return undefined. I did that mostly to be
able to omit curly braces in the one-line if statement (i personally think
On Thursday, 9 June 2011 22:25:34 UTC+10, Stefan Weiss wrote:
On 09.06.2011 01:23, RobG wrote:
A function's this keyword is never empty, it*always* references an
object.
... unless you're running in strict mode.
(function () {
use strict;
console.log(typeof
On Jun 9, 6:12 pm, David Marrs d.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 Jun 2011 00:23, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:34 am, David Marrs d.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
[1] it actually passes the function F's special 'this' object, which
in the above example is empty
On Jun 7, 7:09 pm, sglai suising@gmail.com wrote:
Following is a post at http://objectmix.com/javascript/23091-
generating-javascript-classes-xsd-schema.html.
Google Groups munges URLs unless they are formatted per the old Usenet
format (there's an RFC reference somewhere...):
URL:
On Jun 8, 8:45 pm, Adam hitsthi...@gmail.com wrote:
Very much.
Not all browsers expose the real prototype of an object,
I think there is some confusion here between a constructor's public
prototype property and an object's private [[prototype]] property
(noting that all functions are
On Jun 9, 2:34 am, David Marrs d.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
function F(){};
F.prototype = {foo: 'Alice', bar: 'Bob'};
var a = new F();
var b = new F();
If you inspect a or b in firebug (or equivalent) you will see object
{foo: 'Alice', bar: 'Bob'};
Now try: a.foo = 'Carol';
If you
On Jun 3, 1:58 am, Ben Barber barber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, austincheney
austin.che...@travelocity.comwrote:
On Jun 1, 5:26 pm, Andrew Dodson andrew.j.dod...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking athttp://www.html11.org/
http://www.html11.org/And wondered if
On May 27, 11:42 pm, Martin Honnen martin.hon...@gmail.com wrote:
Bj rn S derqvist wrote:
I managed to make a function which seems to work.
But basically you're saying that even if the following code seems to
work in my browser, I shouldn't rely on it to work?
To give you an example,
On Jun 1, 11:58 am, Nathan Sweet nathanjsw...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically all your posts.
Rob, please read through an entire list before posting. You posted a lot of
redundant information that Diego, et al went over already.
Please point out the redundancy. The comment that:
Also there are
On May 29, 6:42 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan,
the querySelectorAll method exists also on IE 8 in Standard Mode.
In all IE versions 9 there are problem with the Universal selector
since their API methods returns text nodes included in the result set.
This is not
On May 21, 6:09 pm, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Via the JSMentors mailing list you can:
Discuss ECMA-262 standard
Discuss different implementations of ECMA-262
Discuss different host environments of JavaScript
Discuss implementation of algorithms in JavaScript
Discuss
On May 23, 10:08 pm, Rey Bango reyba...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it does Rob.
All this top-posting. Presumably that is in replying to:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
There is nothing in the JSMentors Google Groups profile that links to
the page
On May 18, 11:34 pm, Konstantin Breu konstantin.b...@gmx.net
wrote:
Hi,
I am searching for a cross browser implementation which checks whether the
current window is maximized? And an implementation which opens a popup
maximized (!=fullscreen in IE). Does anyone have hints for that?
Some
On May 8, 12:56 pm, J.R. jrs_5...@yahoo.com.br wrote:
[...]
Well, I was having a mysterious problem with indexOf returning a wrong
value. After testing with FF4, I decided to go back to Chrome's console
(Ctrl + Shift + J) and typed
[0, false, 15].indexOf(false); // console returned 0
On Apr 26, 10:33 pm, Stefan Weiss we...@foo.at wrote:
On 26/04/11 05:08, bemson wrote:
My name is Bemi Faison. I'm the author of Flow, a framework for
defining and executing related functions. (https://github.com/bemson/Flow/
)
I'm of the notion that the concept is more valuable than
On Apr 27, 1:27 am, bemson bem...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Stefan,
Yes, though it works in every browser today, depending on the order of
object-properties was a conscious risk. Naturally, a future version
could use a dual implementation that considered arrays of object-
collections - the same
On May 2, 1:40 am, John asp.netp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello i look at thoose libraries. Can you say to me. Is it good to use
this libraries both in one project, or it is overhead and complex?
Seems to me there was a move some time ago to get away from inline
listeners (i.e. using HTML
On Mar 24, 9:25 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
Works in Chrome, maybe some others, not Firefox or IE so not useful
yet.
Function.prototype.bind is in Firefox 4.
--
Rob
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com
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).
On Mar 21, 5:17 am, Jarek Foksa ja...@kiwi-themes.com wrote:
I do a lot of operations on objects retrieved by querySelector() and
simillar DOM methods, so I thought it would be nice to extend the
built-in Element object with some useful methods and properties.
Don't do that. Do not mess with
On Mar 21, 11:50 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:17 am, Jarek Foksa ja...@kiwi-themes.com wrote:
I do a lot of operations on objects retrieved by querySelector() and
simillar DOM methods, so I thought it would be nice to extend the
built-in Element object with some useful
On Mar 16, 9:37 pm, Peter van der Zee jsment...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Bruno Jouhier bjouh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this behavior precisely defined by the ECMAScript standard, or is
it left open to interpretation?
Enter Yuri or Dmitry ;)
There are a number of
On Mar 18, 8:22 am, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:01 AM, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:47 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:40 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
Try this in various browsers:
(function
On Mar 16, 8:43 pm, Rob Griffiths r...@bytespider.eu wrote:
Why it is better to use a function instead of direct access?
It's not always better.
Where better is not defined. If the OP means faster, then in the
linked tests the best method is evenly split between direct access
and push().
On Mar 17, 2:01 am, Michael Geary m...@mg.to wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Peter van der Zee jsment...@qfox.nlwrote:
... In fact, for-in is not meant to iterate an array[...]
(Note that the order of for-in might look stable but is not specified to be
stable. There's some
On Mar 17, 10:40 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
Try this in various browsers:
(function() {
[...]
})();
Here's one I forgot to add:
// How about an array object
var arr = [];
arr[1] = 'one';
arr[0] = 'two';
show('Is an array in order?\n', arr);
As expected, some
On Mar 17, 10:47 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:40 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
Try this in various browsers:
(function() {
[...]
})();
Here's one I forgot to add:
// How about an array object
var arr = [];
arr[1] = 'one';
arr[0] = 'two
On Mar 14, 1:53 am, Jarek Foksa ja...@kiwi-themes.com wrote:
Almost any modern JavaScript book recommends using subscript notation
(e.g. object[key]) instead of eval() because of the following three
reasons:
- evaled code execution is slow
- evaled code is less readable than the same code
On Mar 13, 9:31 am, Jason Mulligan jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com
wrote:
Hi,
I just released abaaso 1.2 and I'd love some feedback on the global
helper, aka $(). It's sole purpose in the lib is to retrieve Elements,
it's not like jQuery; all the real code sits in a global namespace.
When
On Mar 14, 1:34 pm, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:31 am, Jason Mulligan jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com
wrote:
var instances = [],
i = arg.length;
while (i
On Mar 11, 6:02 am, cancel bubble cancelbub...@gmail.com wrote:
Not being a CS guy myself (though I've been asked to do a bubble sort in an
interview), I can't really speak for this, but I imagine there are those
here who might find this interesting...
On Mar 10, 2:06 am, Stamen Georgiev tuze...@gmail.com wrote:
Just wrote a small test at jsperf for testing a for loop to iterate an
array of objects:http://jsperf.com/if-with-i
If loops are written using simple conditions and logic there is little
be gained from optimisation as the loop
On Mar 10, 9:35 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
[...]
So in the above case it is clearer and sometimes faster (rarely
slower) to write:
while (--i) {
a = b[i];
}
Ugh, that will skip the last member, it should have been:
while (i--) {a = b[i];}
or
while (i) {a = b[--i
On Mar 10, 2:18 pm, Chris chrisageo...@gmail.com wrote:
Also interesting:http://jsperf.com/if-with-i/5
Accessing it without caching the object from the array in a variable is
94% slower.
In what browser? In my IE 6 the one that doesn't store the value is
faster (for your tests).
Anyway,
On Feb 20, 6:58 am, Scott Greenfield jquery@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I feel like I'm a pretty decent JavaScript coder, but I know there is always
more to learn. I wrote a plugin for a plugin,
That is, for a jQuery plugin.
that enhances and extends
the core plugin's functionality.
On Mar 4, 6:37 am, Amit Kumar the...@gmail.com wrote:
I think your approach should be first learn using a library (like jQuery),
That is not a good way to really learn JS (I'd say it's a really bad
way).
which will get you building functional apps pretty quickly.
I doubt the functional
On Mar 3, 6:01 am, wavded wav...@gmail.com wrote:
OK this got me a significant performance bump and works in IE (there is like
5800 options in this multi select, don't ask me why):
Perhaps you should. 5,800 options in a select sounds like a ridiculous
number, how do users find a particular
On Mar 1, 2:29 am, Julian Turner julesb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rob
1. Inheritance in JavaScript is implemented through chains of
prototype objects, ending ultimately at Object.prototype.
Strictly, it ends with the object referenced by the internal
[[prototype]] property of
On Feb 28, 5:29 am, nathanJsweet nathanjsw...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got a really interesting javascript pattern that I've been
scratching my head over for a while. I basically understand what is
going on with what I'm about to talk about, but I would like a fuller
explanation than what I've
On Feb 28, 10:39 am, Ionuț G. Stan ionut.g.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 28, 2011 1:59 AM, RobG wrote:
This isn't the interesting thing yet. What is interesting about this
function is how it is invoked.
You mean called.
What's the difference? You're obviously pedantic, but I'd
On Feb 22, 9:45 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:09 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark,
use event delegation and only setup one listener on the document
for the type of event
On Feb 22, 8:19 am, Mark McDonnell storm.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I need help understanding the Adapter design pattern so I can help
standardise the API usage on a library I'm working on.
Let me clarify that I mention the Adapter design pattern but if there is
another way to do
On Feb 22, 12:09 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark,
use event delegation and only setup one listener on the document
for the type of event you want notifications.
And for those events that don't bubble?
--
Rob
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors
On Feb 18, 11:32 pm, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18.02.2011 6:00, nathanJsweet wrote:
So in the new ECMA standard the body decided that when the this word
is used at the highest hierarchical level (i.e. when it would normally
be the window object) would be
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:
On Feb 17, 1:40 am, Jason Mulligan jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com
wrote:
a more complete implementation...
Object.prototype.define = function(args, value) {
if (typeof(args) != string) { throw Expected a String; }
args = args.split(.);
Unless one of the property names has a
On Feb 17, 4:46 am, Jason Mulligan jason.mulli...@avoidwork.com
wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:58 pm, Andraž Kos andraz@gmail.com wrote:
Only unmaintainable code has related variables nested in a mess of
various depth.
Man, if only that was true... have you seen the shit that ExtJS
generates?
On Feb 15, 7:12 pm, Peter van der Zee jsment...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Ivan S ivan.sku...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all.
I don't know ECMA script specification so well, so if someone can explain
what's the difference between this two:
(function() {
}());
On Feb 3, 6:39 pm, Guillaume Andrieu gh...@taleo-initiative.org
wrote:
Hi Rob.
A consequence of using most general purpose libraries is that because
they only support a small number of current browsers and don't
tolerate new browsers very well (a consequence of their poor code
quality
On Feb 3, 6:17 am, Guillaume Andrieu subtena...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 20:22, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Garrett.
Thanks for your critic eye to this article. But I'd like you to expand a bit
on this:
JS Libraries are by and for incompetents.
I wonder
On Jan 31, 9:46 am, cancel bubble cancelbub...@gmail.com wrote:
My thesis is that the security situation with JavaScript is so poor that
the only solution is to kill it. End users have very little in the way of
protection against malicious JavaScript, major web sites suffer from XSS and
CSRF
On Jan 25, 5:59 am, mckoss mck...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been doing a lot of Python programming, and have found the
implementation of multiple-inheritance there to be quite useful and
expressive. Python has a concept of Method Resolution Order (MRO, or
more specifically, C3 MRO) - you can
On Jan 20, 12:10 am, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 19, 8:29 am, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Jan 19, 1:49 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I don't know if there are known problems using these defaultXX
DOM properties. Anybody have reasons
On Jan 19, 9:33 am, fernando trasvina trasv...@gmail.com wrote:
you can also check the W3C DOM spec
athttp://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#adef-checked
Attribute definitions
checked [CI]
When the type attribute has the value radio or checkbox, this boolean
attribute
On Jan 19, 1:49 pm, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Miller Medeiros
lis...@millermedeiros.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com
wrote:
as you can see, the .attr(checked, false) may have changed a
On Jan 18, 10:01 am, Shawn Stringfield shawn.stringfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm actually not trying to solve the unknown by using jquery. I was able
to save sessions without using any plugins at all or using jquery for that
matter and I'm definitely not using jquery as an excuse to not learn
On Jan 18, 1:02 pm, Shawn Stringfield shawn.stringfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks Rob. I've got a question for you. When you began learning
JavaScript which approach did you take? Did you start with becoming
familiar with syntax and learning each aspect of the language? Would you
recommend
On Jan 2, 9:19 am, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:48 am, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following template. Sure its a little verbose,
but Uncle Bob declare comments to be failures, so I'm trying to
obviate such failure with the
On Dec 21, 7:25 am, raysaun ray.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fairly new to JS with no formal training, but I try my best to be
conscientious...
I notice that in our code base lots of data gets shoved into the
browser's DOM. Is that a good idea? For example, a component might
perform an AJAX
On Dec 16, 5:35 am, Balázs Galambosi galambal...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if google groups is safe from spam... Just look what happened
to comp.lang.javascript
And who is to blame for that?
clj is not a Google Group, it is a Usenet news group. The vast
majority of the spam there is from
On Dec 17, 5:37 pm, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Yu-Hsuan Lai rainco...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
f = function () {};
Another undeclared assignment, leaking `f` to the global scope. Prepend
`var` (to make it a function expression) or change to
On Dec 16, 4:21 pm, Amit Agarwal lifea...@gmail.com wrote:
*Hi,
How about people coming up with brain storming questions in Javascript which
need deep understanding of the language and are little painful to think
completely.
Everything old is new again. If by Javascript you mean ECMA-262,
79 matches
Mail list logo
