i think that
Chapter 8 - Prototype Property
should be
Chapter 8 - Function Prototype Property
Because only functions have that property, all the rest is an Object, even when
you use Object.create that sets the internal __proto__ -> some Object
On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:19 AM, codylindley wrote:
try to avoid blocking the user from doing stuff. (use async)
if the process takes time show a loading for that action but don't block the ui
that way the user does not get interrupted and he wont care much about the time.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Connor Montgomery wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Long
Well you could say so, but not really you should never consider a way to be
over another for arbitrary reasons.
lets say that if i have to create a rule when to use each method i would say.
if the execution is "static" (predictable and never changing) so you specify
each argument manually and do
basically the difference is the meaning of the arguments.
assume f = function(x,y){};
f.apply(obj, [xValue, yValue]);
So in this case the array will become the arguments on function f.
f.call(obj, xValue, yValue);
So in this case the "rest" arguments will become the arguments on function f.
Wha
lol the answer was so simple :) can arrays contain different types?
On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Matthew Bramer wrote:
> @Michael
> You are exactly right! I didn't know you could do that. This method is
> going to be the best fit for my project. Thank you very much!
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> --
how about something like this?
var x = function(config){
var default = {
x : '',
y : '',
z : ''
}
args = Array(arguments)
for(var i = 0; i < args.length; i++){
for(var prop in config){
if the number matters why not an array?
On Jun 25, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Matthew Bramer wrote:
> I think that subject title is syntactically correct. Feel free to correct me
> if I'm mistaken.
>
> Here's some sample code:
>
> console.log( somePlugin.Query({
> listName: "Bid Key",
> config: {
you may not like it but its correct
10.3.3 Block-level, non-replaced elements in normal flow
The following constraints must hold among the used values of the other
properties:
'margin-left' + 'border-left-width' + 'padding-left' + 'width' +
'padding-right' + 'border-right-width' + 'margin-righ
I totally agree Diego i was just complementing you not correcting you :). so
new people don't do crazy things.
On May 12, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Diego Perini wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> I think all this alternate ways to create function ex
I think all this alternate ways to create function expressions fall into
cleverness, this even if they are valid and produce the desired result, don't
justify the usage of this idioms.
saving one bit of code by using an extra operation does not seem right.
besides () GroupingOperator is designed
this is possible because function(){} now is being evaluated as an expression
not a declaration
so function expressions are allowed to not have names.
On May 11, 2011, at 5:53 PM, gaz Heyes wrote:
> It's simply a function expression I think it's called, so it's actually
> illegal syntax just to
Monkey patching (augmenting) is a good solution due to the nature of javascript
prototypal nature, the problems come when those improvements are not organized
or documented.
what we do is make this decision
if we wont maintain the the source code, we decorate the original object with a
new one
Monkey patching (augmenting) is a good solution due to the nature of javascript
prototypal nature, the problems come when those improvements are not organized
or documented.
what we do is make this decision
if we wont maintain the the source code, we decorate the original object with a
new one
for what it seems you are in the direction of building an app not a site
if that is the case and average load times get bigger consider loading the core
functionality javascript first
and choose background loading the rest or lazy loading.
if you go beyond that consider a loading notice, if your
it becomes
a lil problem.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> In my process i configure one file that has the list of the files on the
>> packages.
>>
>> in the company i currently work we u
Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> yes that could be one idea i think that some of of the previously posted
>> libraries are good doing that, but i would go with a minifier on the server
>> rather than downloading files separately
>> you can even mix th
yes that could be one idea i think that some of of the previously posted
libraries are good doing that, but i would go with a minifier on the server
rather than downloading files separately
you can even mix the files to create different packages for special needs you
may have.
On Mar 5, 2011,
you can do that trough ajax, using a wait function to load the scripts in
order, but going other way with this.
why do you load files that way if I may ask?
that approach is kinda slow if you know you need those scripts why don't you
use one js packager
On Mar 5, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jarek Foks
i would go to not aliasing the "this" variable unless you want a closure to
have access to the original this, like when passing a function to an event
handler
other than that it seems that you are making up a generalization based on fear.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
Its a very good idea, saving to my bookmarks
On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Nick Morgan wrote:
> It looks very useful to me. You don't need to follow the links to the docs
> (which I've never had a problem with).
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 1 February 2011 05:19, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/31/11, cancel
life kills everyone, let's destroy it.
lol a lil too exaggerated right :P
pretty nice presentation, but even though javascript has some security problems
when used on the browser its mainly a developers problem, same thing with other
languages, just open every remote file and eval it on ruby,
you are right Diego, sorry for the misunderstanding
i thought that you where saying that that would not work. and yes it does not
modify the attribute it modifies the property.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Diego Perini wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM, fernando trasvina
>
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/18/11, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/11, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2011, at
On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/18/11, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/17/11, Miller Medeiros wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Diego Perini
>>
you can also check the W3C DOM spec at
http://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 specifies that the button is on. User agents must ignore this
attribut
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/17/11, Miller Medeiros wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Diego Perini
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Miller Medeiros
>>> wrote:
>
$('#my-check-box').attr('checked', true); -> should work cross bro
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Miller Medeiros wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Diego Perini wrote:
>
>$('#my-check-box').attr('checked', true);
>
> will confuse users into believe that "false" in the above statement is
> needed to achieve the opposite effect of unchecking the e
ies. When a user comes
> to a page, I will give them the option of seeing the page layout with
> thumbnails vs. details of images. The layout is based on them clicking a
> checkbox for thumbnails or a checkbox for details. I hope this is more
> descriptive of what I'm trying t
checkboxes have checked attribute you could pass checked true if it was checked.
i dont know if you are trying to do something more complex a lil more info may
help.
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:16 AM, Shawn Stringfield wrote:
> How do I save checkbox state using jquery? Do I need to use php session
once again on this garret, why you always pick a fight with everyone?
this happened already top posting is not recommended but that is it, the
important thing is the content
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/7/11, Rey Bango wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Garret
I would say you could start with
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=111593
its an introduction to the language by douglas crockford.
On Jan 3, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Joe wrote:
> I'd really recommend listening to some of Douglas Crockford's talks on
> YUI Theater. The series "Crockford on JavaScri
Hey very nice tool
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 2, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Ariya Hidayat
wrote:
If you have latest command-line SpiderMonkey or my little tool
'SyntaxJS' (see https://github.com/ariya/syntaxjs for the code), you
can see the syntax tree produced by the parser.
For the case:
funct
On Jan 2, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Douglas Muth wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Guy Royse wrote:
>> So how does node.js work with multi-core processors.
>
> The core language itself does not. But there are add-ons that do. See
>
> https://github.com/kriszyp/multi-node
> and http://stackove
is there any current project focused on creating a load balancer for multicore,
something like unicorn for ruby maybe (that the most similar thing that comes
to my mind)?
On Jan 2, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Guy Royse wrote:
> So how does node
On Jan 2, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/2/11, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:48:44 +0100, Tom Wilson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just finished reading "High Performance JavaScript" and now I'm paying
>>> more attention to scope. So my question is: within an object met
On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, jemptymethod wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:08 am, jmulligan wrote:
> > I do something similar with my lib (http://github.com/avoidwork/
> > abaaso) that's under dev. It works well, but you can't use private and
> >
On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:00 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 01.01.2011 2:43, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> Hi. very nice explanation but what i don't fully understand is why the
>> grouping operator makes the parenthesis following the function declaration
>> work a
Hi. very nice explanation but what i don't fully understand is why the grouping
operator makes the parenthesis following the function declaration work as call.
(function(x){alert(x)}(1));
why this is not treated the same way as:
function(x){}(1);
On Dec 31, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnik
On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/27/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/26/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:36 AM,
On Dec 26, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 26.12.2010 3:51, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.12.2010 2:46, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
&
On Dec 26, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/26/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/25/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:44 PM,
On Dec 26, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 26.12.2010 3:51, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.12.2010 2:46, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
&
On Dec 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/26/10, Angus Croll wrote:
>> Actually closures *do* reference every outer variable even when not
>> used - if they did not, JavaScript's entire lexical scoping principal
>> would break. Evey invocation of a function establishes and enter
studied chemistry so i think with this info we can understand each other
better, avoid conflicts and become more participative than defensive.
On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/25/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Garr
On Dec 26, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 26.12.2010 3:51, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.12.2010 2:46, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
&
On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/25/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/24/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Garre
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:44 pm, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> i would like to propose that we stick to the provided examples on the
>> original discussion instead of changing it every reply because it gets too
>> hard to disc
totally agree with you on this :)
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:36 pm, fernando trasvina wrote:
> [...]
>> so you always check your types in your factories?
>> and always check for the interface on your apis?
>> is this
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:38 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 12/24/10, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:> On Dec
>> 24, 6:43 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
The client of the API gets an interface object that has properties and
methods so instanceof and
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:19 pm, fernando trasvina wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 5:46 pm, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>>>> What crockford is trying to
On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 25.12.2010 2:46, fernando trasvina wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> What crockford is trying to point is that you should not think as the new
>> operator as the classical use of new
>> you should think of it as t
i would like to propose that we stick to the provided examples on the original
discussion instead of changing it every reply because it gets too hard to
discuss when examples are changing to completely different examples for every
correction. i don't know what you think about it.
On Dec 25, 201
n Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Garrett Smith
> wrote:
>> On 12/24/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/24/10, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>>>> On D
On Dec 24, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/24/10, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> The client of the API gets an interface object that has properties and
>>> methods so instanceof and constructor shouldn't matter.
>>
>> instanceof is imp
On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/24/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/24/10, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>>> On Dec 24, 3:05 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 24, 5:46 pm, fernando trasvina wrote:
>
>> What crockford is trying to point is that you should not think as the new
>> operator as the classical use of new
>> you should think of it as the prototype pat
On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/24/10, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 3:05 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I rather have it one way or the other. e.g.
>>>
>>> makePoint(x, y);
>>>
>>> - OR -
>>>
>>> new Point(x, y);
>>>
>>> I just don't like seeing any
On Dec 24, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:05 pm, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> I rather have it one way or the other. e.g.
>>
>> makePoint(x, y);
>>
>> - OR -
>>
>> new Point(x, y);
>>
>> I just don't like seeing any extra if/else in the code. I also don't
>> wa
use ?Math.random() on ur uri
or timestamp + Math.random()
On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Amit Agarwal wrote:
> Hi every one,
>
> I need to poll an image using javascript and need to perform an action once
> the image is found at its position. This is the code I have written for this
> task.
>
>
i once worked on a php code like this. the strategy was using facade pattern as
the implementation of the new api and slowly work on that.
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:39 AM, cihat altuntas wrote:
> I have beeing working on 20k Big Ball of Mud legacy javascript code base.
> It's a xml based custom ASP.
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/19/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/10, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith
>>&g
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/19/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/10, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith
>>&g
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/19/10, fernando trasvina wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/10, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith
>>&g
On Dec 19, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 12/18/10, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Garrett Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/10, Ezequiel wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:37 am, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
> var beget = (function() {
> function F(){ };
> re
actually no, but it help to keep consistency to add the parenthesis to the
call. Because you are actually executing the function in your call.
On Dec 18, 2010, at 9:59 PM, Ezequiel wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2:37 am, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>> var beget = (function() {
>> function F(){ };
>> return f
another very good tool to compress javascript files is jammit, we have been
using it to manage projects with many files around 300
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Joel Dart wrote:
> Concerning the 1 file vs many files, one common approach is to combine your
> files on production but develop the fi
66 matches
Mail list logo
