Re: How to list the statement of all var ?


"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > why should I go all the way to explain in lenghty details
> > the subtle differences between associative arrays and indexed arrays ?
>
> Why should you provide something that returns the names of properties
> of an object when the question was about `var' statements?

because it's useless to obtain the value of a var statement
if you don't know to wich property it is associated...

> var x, y, z;
>
> should be _one_ entry in the requested list.

That's _your_ coding style

you got other ways of declaring vars
var x;
var y;
var z;

and when you declare variable inside a container
the var keyword is useless

var foobar = new Object();
foobar.x = 0;
foobar.y = 1;

writing "var foobar.x = 0;" is useless
the container "foobar" is already declared with var.

[snip]
> > Why don't you go into those details if you think these explanations are
> > missing and should be stated to undertand better the problem at stake ?
>
> Because it has already been discussed at great length here before.
>

well instead of pointing my lack of precision concerning that matter
just point a reference to a previous posting discussing it

you think this discussion require such precision so _you_ sould point to the
reference, not me.

> > [...]
> >> > in FF for ex:
> >> No, it will not always, unless toSource() is user-defined.
> >
> > "in FF" mean "in FireFox"...
>
> It does not work this way in Firefox (1.5) without prototype augmentation,
> or in JavaScript for that matter, and it never has.

I didn't tested with FireFox v1.5 yet

And as soon as i will test it for this particular host
I will be able to valid or invalid your comment.

I believe in unit tests not in biased individual with an agenda.

> > you don't need to define the toSource method in FireFox afaik
>
> True, there is native prototype.toSource() for several core objects but
> it does returns something different than you suggest in all cases.
>

If you have read what I suggest you would had seen that I suggest
to use an Object object instead of an Array object.

toSource either in native SpiderMoneky implementation or in my own
implementation
does not list array members other than the indexed elements
and this is for me a logic behaviour, if you don't understand why I can
explain it to you.


> > it's natively implemented in the SpiderMonkey engine.
>
> Yes, but it does not do what you suggest.

Yes It does you just didn't pay attention to what I suggest.

>
> > (and please don't point that I don't provide the exact version of the
> > engine)
>
> It does not and has never worked this way in any SpiderMonkey version.

yes it does, you should test it for yourself instead of being stubborn and
trying to prove at all cost that I have made a false statement.

[snip]
>
> Usage of exact terms are one important key to understanding.
>

Yes and you are surely not doing that.


> > I meant "any browser" as "any browser host", as "any browser host
> > implementing ECMA-262 standard", [...]
>
> It would have been true if you wrote "any language that is an
> ECMAScript _3_ implementation." What is a "browser host" anyway?
>

so a host implementing ECMA-262 standard is not an ECMAScript 3
implementation ?

that's really funny to read :)

as far as I know there can be only ECMAScript 3 implementations
as the ECMAScript 4 standard is still as a draft and then not officialy
released...


[snip]
>
> > and so not being able to execute JavaScript ?
>
> The question conveys a misconception about ECMAScript and JavaScript.
> ECMAScript (3) !== JavaScript (1.5).
>

I never said that!
you interpreting this yourself thinking you're the only one making the
difference
between ECMAScript (the language as defined in the ECMA-262 3rd edition)
and JavaScript (the implementation of this language in Netscape/Mozilla
browsers).


[snip]
>
> If you are not able to write Valid markup from the top of your head (which
> is a sure sign of insufficient experience), you should validate the result
> first, because bad examples are copied by the uninitiated and end up in
bad
> code.
>

oh now I understand why you're commenting this way

you're no here to help someone solve a problem or discuss about code

you're here to point that I have "sure sign of insufficient experience"

this is laugthable

are you feeling so insecure about your own experience ?

[snip]
> > I inverted 2 HTML tags..big deal
> > as sometimes I can inverse letters in words too because I write too fast
> > hey I'm just human
>
> The rest of your markup is not Valid, too.

when you look for a solution it's better to have not a perfect valid code
than no code at all

I think people are smart enougth to grab part of a solution amongs different
comments to write their own solution

there is no problem to point that I inversed some markups,
but the way you do it you only say that to be able to say
that I got "sure sign of insufficient experience",
you don't do that to help solve a problem
you do that to secure your own ego

at best this is childdish from your part

>
> > What is worhtless imho is someone spending his valuable time
> > pointing finger to all my little errors as if every human were
> > robots and perfect
>
> /You/ _posted_ the example.

You posted no example at all, just unconstructive criticism

if so easy to make no errors when you don't post code at all


>
> > are we here to help someone solve a problem
> > or to start a fight on what is worthless or not ?
>
> Examples with not Valid markup are worthless, because script code can only
> operate reliably on Valid markup. That is a fact, not something that can
> or should be fought about.
>

the fact is that you sound like a kid which have too much time on his hands
to pinpoint all those little things

I never said that unvalid markup was good, it just happen that while
writing those examples I inverted some tags...big deal!

[snip]
>
> You are misusing the word. There is nothing traced here at all. Maybe
> I would have concured if you provided a serialization of the properties,

I don't care if you concur or not, you're obviously not here to have a
constructive debate
about some code or some solution, you're just here to critic whatever you
can critic.

I provide a serialization of the properties, you're just so full of yourself
to not see it.

> that is, show what steps are executed or serialize each known property
> value (including those that are not enumerable) until there would only

you can not serialize properties marked with the dontEnum attribute
go read ECMA-262 3rd edition spec (chapter 8.6.1 , PDF p38/188).

> be primitive values. That would be some kind of tracing, following the
> trace from one property to the primitive value. So a trace of
> x = {y: [/z/]};

the code do provide tracing, but perharps you don't know how to use that
kind of code.

>
> could look like
>
> x = new Object();
> x.y = new Array();
> x.y[0] = new RegExp("z");
>
> or
>
> x = {
> y: Array
> {
> "0": RegExp
> {
> ...
> source: "z"
> ...
> },
> length: 1
> ...
> }
> };
>

it's the kind of tracing I got using core2 toSource methods and ToSource
global function
except that the RegExp object is traced as a regular object


[snip...I think you are the issue]
> >> I also see other examples of bad code style:
> >> an undeclared variable just to call a function and then `delete' it,
> >
> > does this cause a bug ?
>
> No, but it rightfully causes a warning in the JavaScript console.
Variables
> should be declared. With your code, assuming an ECMAScript 3 compliant
> script engine is used,
>
> (function(...)
> {
> // ...
> })(...);
>
> sufficed. There is no need for the undeclared global variable, hence
> no need for `delete'.

a warning is not an error

my solution is totally valid, and if that does not please you
because you think you know everything and everydy should do as you say
well... :D

avoid falacious arguments like that, it start to really be boring to read
you

> >> bad indentation,
> >
> > did you realize that the LIB releases have indeed their indentation
> > striped out
> > (as uncessary empty lines and code comments)
>
> No, but that is not the point. You should and could have stripped it
> better then.

the point is you have no valid argument to tell me how I should
organize, build, etc. my own code

and seeing how you, you organize your own code,
sorry but I prefer to stick on my way of doing things.

I'm still free to do that right ?

> > because their sole purpose are to be used as LIBraries,
> > if you want clean indented code with comments and all
> > you can check the DEVelopper releases,
> > or directly the source code in SVN.
>
> What are you talking about?

you don't read indented code in a compiled DLL right ?

comments, spaces, indentation...these are just to make the code readable by
developpers

the code do not need to be indented to be interpreted correctly
I don't do "readable" libraries I do "compact as possible" libraries
so I repeat, if you want to obtain readable code check the DEV release or
the SVN repository

or perharps you never used the Subversion tool (SVN) ?

>
> The developer release is just as badly indented:
>
[snip]

no... really ???

if you think that your coding standard should be imposed to everyone
and that would automagically make all other coding standards "badly
indented"

you think wrong
but you're free to think whatever make you feel comfortable with yourself :)

>
> >> error-prone property inference and so on.
> >
> > [...]
> > but afaik with the current code base and the current sets of unit tests
> > and the current tested hosts
> > I don't see any property inference, so if you can point where you see
> > such an error happening
> > I would just be happy to correct it.
>
> The problem is that you tested with certain host environments and infer
> from those special cases to the general one.

either you're underestimating the amount of work behind my code
or either you try to impose your vision of things on my code requirements

yes I could take the time to try to explain you why things are build like
that in my code,
but I think you would not even read and just try again to impose your point
of view,
so I will save me the trouble and the time of doing that.

> What your code is lacking
> to be almost bullet-proof is a feature-test _on run-time_ that the used
> features, particularly the used DOM features, are supported.

the unit tests are indeed run at runtime ...on each different hosts
the tests does not change depending on the host, they are the same for each
tested host

and I repeat again I don't test DOM features, I test ECMAScript features

trace/printf/document.write are just end points
dependant on the host not on ECMAScript

to include DOM unit tests, that will create errors on host not having a DOM
or force me to have 2 different branching: one for host having a DOM and one
for the other hosts

the goal of the library is to be portable as it is on different hosts either
with a DOM or not
because indeed one of the requirement (and feature) is to have the same API
everywhere.

you are focusing too much on the DOM, and this is totally oppposite to the
requirrement of the code.

> > [...]
> > The merit of a coding style is to be coherent amongs the whole code,
> > you are coherent amongs your code, I am coherent amongs my code,
> > doing things differently does not mean one way is better than another,
> > it's just a coding style.
>
> That is not entirely true. Bad code style usually is based on
> misconceptions and often results in unreliable code and/or code
> that is harder to maintain.
>

oh mister guru please show me the ligth...

as it is now my code have no misconceptions, you can think that
and I can tell you, you're a just plain wrong

I don't claim that my code is perfect but I really start to be tired
of your worhtless comments that I see as personnal attack
just because you got an ego problem

my code is not unreliable because all the code is tested
and yes sure bug can occur, and then I would simply
add more tests concerning that particular bug and the bug will be solved
as any developper would do in any half-serious project...nothing special
here

the code is not harder to maintain
because I use a versioning system,
because I use a build system,
and because I use unit tests

but apparently you can not understand that :)

> I could provide more examples of that right from your code, but
> that would not be worth the time required to be invested.

arf.. no you prefer to invest your time in unconstructive and worthless
criticism
and well I should not be surprised as everybody know: troll do have pointed
ears

first, let me tell you that the example you have already provided are not
valid at all,
second, I highly doubt your capacity of providing such valid examples,
and third, I think my previous respect to your comments was misplaced and
only
occured because of the amount of your posting.

So yes you can post any big volume of criticism,
but as far as I know that does not prove anything about
the validity or invalidity of my code.

If you want to have constructive discussion about ECMAScript programming,
that would be always welcome, if you're only here to impose your point of
view
thinking you are always right about evrything, I'm afraid I will be force to
let you
discuss all that with yourself and just ignore your comments.

zwetan


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast