Terminology? Object structure definition, not a class?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: CreateTextFile
Next: Precise printing from Javascript?
From: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 00:13 On Aug 6, 10:26 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-23 11:10 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>> On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > >>>>> John G Harris wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>> [snip informative explanation] > > >>>>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > >>>> Example: > > >>>> function Person(){} > >>>> Person.prototype = {}; > >>>> var a = new Person; > > >>> Use the call operator. Thanks. > > >> There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. > > > Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it? > > If you weren't a perpetual jerk or if you had at least asked a smart > question non-insulting manner, I'd probably try and guess as to what I > think you might have meant. If you weren't such a perpetual loser, perhaps you wouldn't have to be corrected so often. > > But instead, you posted -- and it was pointed out -- your own made-up > terminology to make a rather pointless comment. I did no such thing. Your nonsensical reply demonstrates nothing but your own ignorance. > You followed that up > with a loaded question[1] about "my world" (how ironic). Not ironic at all given your history. > And we just > covered "my world" a day or two prior... > > Found it. You wrote: Oh here we go... > > | In your own fantasy world I presume. In reality, your response > | demonstrated a stunning lack of comprehension. No context, but it sounds like a reasonable response to some nonsensical comment of yours. > > And my reply: > | I see you've snipped what was written and replied flippantly. It > | reflects typical behavior of David Mark. And that was the proverbial pot calling the kettle black (as evidenced here once again). > > And again, another typical DM reply. After a brief hiatus, I see the NG > littered with more of the same from you. If you have something to say about my "litter" then say it. > > Ironically, you missed the actual problem in the code I posted. What code? > The > problem is that my code omitted a semicolon. So? > Two, actually. What is more > ironic is that in the code guidelines document[2] goes to great length > to explain the problem and in so doing, explains the lexical grammar > production for what might likely be your "call operator" thing. You are such a numb-skull. > > The production is called `Arguments`. Then again, you've not explained > yourself; so about the best I can do is guess as to what you wanted to ask. > It was a rhetorical question. And so, instead of calling the call operator what it is, you refer to it as "Arguments". I'm sure that won't cause any confusion.
From: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 18:15 On Aug 8, 4:03 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2010-08-07 09:13 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > On Aug 6, 10:26 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 2010-07-23 11:10 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > >>> On Jul 24, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > >>>>> On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > > >>>>>>> John G Harris wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> [snip informative explanation] > > > >>>>>>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > > >>>>>> Example: > > > >>>>>> function Person(){} > > >>>>>> Person.prototype = {}; > > >>>>>> var a = new Person; > > > >>>>> Use the call operator. Thanks. > > > >>>> There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. > > > >>> Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it? > > > >> If you weren't a perpetual jerk or if you had at least asked a smart > > >> question non-insulting manner, I'd probably try and guess as to what I > > >> think you might have meant. > > > > If you weren't such a perpetual loser, perhaps you wouldn't have to be > > > corrected so often. > > > >> But instead, you posted -- and it was pointed out -- your own made-up > > >> terminology to make a rather pointless comment. > > > > I did no such thing. Your nonsensical reply demonstrates nothing but > > > your own ignorance. > > > Do you have a special version of ECMA-262 that defines a call operator, > > or did you just not RTFM? > > > >> Ironically, you missed the actual problem in the code I posted. > > > > What code? > > > You made a comment on code I wrote just few posts back "Please use the > > call operator thanks". > > > >> The > > >> problem is that my code omitted a semicolon. > > > > So? > > > So you missed the problem and made up some nonsense. Ironically, the > > document that explains the actual problem sheds light on your irrelevant > > nonsense. > > > >> Two, actually. What is more > > >> ironic is that in the code guidelines document[2] goes to great length > > >> to explain the problem and in so doing, explains the lexical grammar > > >> production for what might likely be your "call operator" thing. > > > > You are such a numb-skull. > > > No, that's you. > > I know you are but what am I? :) > > > > > >> The production is called `Arguments`. Then again, you've not explained > > >> yourself; so about the best I can do is guess as to what you wanted to ask. > > > > It was a rhetorical question. > > > That's not how I saw it. > > Your reading comprehension has never been in question (it seems to be > non-existent). > > > > > > And so, instead of calling the call operator what it is, you refer to > > > it as "Arguments". I'm sure that won't cause any confusion. > > > I refer to `Arguments` as `Arguments`; not as "call operator" -- that's > > your made-up terminology. > > It is certainly not made-up terminology. > > > The production for `Arguments` is clearly > > defined in ECMA-262 under 11.2 Left-Hand-Side Expressions. > > There's no water in Coca-Cola. It's called H20. :) > I suppose I better head off el nitwit by pointing out my typo. Can you spot it?
From: Garrett Smith on 10 Aug 2010 19:47 On 2010-08-08 01:03 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Aug 8, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-08-07 09:13 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 6, 10:26 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-07-23 11:10 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 24, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> John G Harris wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> [snip informative explanation] >> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. >> >>>>>>>> Example: >> >>>>>>>> function Person(){} >>>>>>>> Person.prototype = {}; >>>>>>>> var a = new Person; >> >>>>>>> Use the call operator. Thanks. >> >>>>>> There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. >> >>>>> Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it? >> Part of the misthinking that went into calling `Arguments` a "call operator" is the believe that `Arguments` is an operator -- possibly some sort of unary operator, like the delete, void, typeof, any postfix or prefix operators, or any of the logical operators. It isn't. Parenthesis is either `Arguments` or as Grouping Operator, depending on the context in which it appears. When parenthesis appear to the right of a MemeberExpression, then a CallExpression is formed. This makes Arguments look like it is being used as an operator and it does act like one here. However, when parenthesis appears to the right of a NewExpression, then it is used to pass values to the constructor function being called. The `Arguments` doesn't cause the function to be called. In contrast, it is the new Operator that causes the function to be called. A related thread that explains it (for those who are not completely incorrigable): <http://groups.google.vu/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/defa46670afd31b7> [ranting] > >> >> You could have stopped with "unreliable source of information regarding >> ECMAScript," but you seem intent on destroying your reputation with >> obvious falsehoods. > > You seem intent on posting childish OT nonsense. For years you > haven't had a reputation as anything but a loon and amnesiac, who > misquotes, misconstrues, misunderstands and ultimately makes up > stories to deflect attention from his own ineptitude. In that regard, > your place in history is secure. Uh-huh. Seems you agree with me about you being a jerk. -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 13 Aug 2010 20:38
On Aug 10, 7:47 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-08 01:03 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-08-07 09:13 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>> On Aug 6, 10:26 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 2010-07-23 11:10 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 24, 1:52 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 2010-07-23 08:18 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> John G Harris wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> [snip informative explanation] > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > >>>>>>>> Example: > > >>>>>>>> function Person(){} > >>>>>>>> Person.prototype = {}; > >>>>>>>> var a = new Person; > > >>>>>>> Use the call operator. Thanks. > > >>>>>> There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript. > > >>>>> Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it? > > Part of the misthinking that went into calling `Arguments` a "call > operator" is the believe that `Arguments` is an operator -- possibly > some sort of unary operator, like the delete, void, typeof, any postfix > or prefix operators, or any of the logical operators. It isn't. > > Parenthesis is either `Arguments` or as Grouping Operator, depending on > the context in which it appears. When parenthesis appear to the right of > a MemeberExpression, then a CallExpression is formed. This makes > Arguments look like it is being used as an operator and it does act like > one here. > > However, when parenthesis appears to the right of a NewExpression, then > it is used to pass values to the constructor function being called. The > `Arguments` doesn't cause the function to be called. In contrast, it is > the new Operator that causes the function to be called. It is well-established that the paranthesis (or call operator as it is commonly known) is optional when using the - new - operator. Leaving it off is bad form though (as I told you). Your subsequent, irrelevant rant about what the specs call it is typical. > > A related thread that explains it (for those who are not completely > incorrigable): > <http://groups.google.vu/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thre...> Whatever. Call me incorrigible, but I don't follow your links. > > [ranting] > > > > >> You could have stopped with "unreliable source of information regarding > >> ECMAScript," but you seem intent on destroying your reputation with > >> obvious falsehoods. > > > You seem intent on posting childish OT nonsense. For years you > > haven't had a reputation as anything but a loon and amnesiac, who > > misquotes, misconstrues, misunderstands and ultimately makes up > > stories to deflect attention from his own ineptitude. In that regard, > > your place in history is secure. > > Uh-huh. Seems you agree with me about you being a jerk. Reading comprehension problem flaring up again? :) |