new self invoking function
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
From: John G Harris on 8 Aug 2010 13:49 On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 at 22:08:07, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark wrote: <snip> >Built-in objects, host objects, etc. are not variables. The appearance of "the globally defined variable NaN" and "the globally defined variable Infinity" in ECMA 262 v3 sec 8.5 suggests that some knowledgeable people disagree with you. >Calling them >as such serves only to create confusion (and there is enough of that >as it is). As usual with dogmatic people you have failed to suggest a sensible term for the general case, in this case covering everything that can be assigned from and assigned to if not ReadOnly. That's the real recipe for confusion. John -- John Harris
From: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 15:40 On Aug 8, 10:17 am, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 7:08 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (...) Named > > arguments and function expressions (the latter of which should be > > avoided) (...) > > NFEs ? Avoided ? Why ? NFEs are *not* the problem, the problem is > Microsoft. *Named* NFE's. And the problem is not MS, but your refusal to deal with the reality of their bugs. Pretending they don't exist is not a sound strategy. > > > The only gray area would be implied global "variables", which are used > > without declaration and create properties on the Global Object (which > > differ slightly from those created by properly declared global > > variables). > > > Built-in objects, host objects, etc. are not variables. Calling them > > as such serves only to create confusion (and there is enough of that > > as it is). > > Global symbols: global vars, global objects, global mehtods, etc, all > of them properties of the Global Object So what? That doesn't mean you should refer to all of them as "variables". > (the one that 'window' > aliases) We've been over that.
From: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 15:45 On Aug 8, 1:49 pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 at 22:08:07, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark > wrote: > > <snip> > > >Built-in objects, host objects, etc. are not variables. > > The appearance of > "the globally defined variable NaN" and > "the globally defined variable Infinity" > in ECMA 262 v3 sec 8.5 suggests that some knowledgeable people disagree > with you. You seem to have missed the point that it is not a matter of knowledge but communication. The specs are written for *implementors*, not programmers. That's why JS programmers don't refer to the language as "ECMAScript" and rarely talk of syntax in terms of "productions". ;) > > >Calling them > >as such serves only to create confusion (and there is enough of that > >as it is). > > As usual with dogmatic people you have failed to suggest a sensible term > for the general case, in this case covering everything that can be > assigned from and assigned to if not ReadOnly. That's the real recipe > for confusion. > There is no need for a term for such a general case (except perhaps for implementors). Trying to use such a term in programming discussions will only serve to confuse.
From: Ry Nohryb on 8 Aug 2010 16:55 On Aug 8, 9:40 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 10:17 am, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > NFEs ? Avoided ? Why ? NFEs are *not* the problem, the problem is > > Microsoft. > > *Named* NFE's. (...) Yes, the truly, really well named ones: named-named-function- expressions :-) > And the problem is not MS, but your refusal to deal > with the reality of their bugs. (...) You should avoid the IEs, not the NFEs... and I have a plan for this: do you want to know more ? -- Jorge.
From: Garrett Smith on 8 Aug 2010 18:01
On 2010-08-08 12:45 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Aug 8, 1:49 pm, John G Harris<j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 at 22:08:07, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Built-in objects, host objects, etc. are not variables. >> >> The appearance of >> "the globally defined variable NaN" and >> "the globally defined variable Infinity" >> in ECMA 262 v3 sec 8.5 suggests that some knowledgeable people disagree >> with you. > > You seem to have missed the point that it is not a matter of knowledge > but communication. The specs are written for *implementors*, not > programmers. That's why JS programmers don't refer to the language as > "ECMAScript" and rarely talk of syntax in terms of "productions". ;) > > Of all possible arguments could have been made, that one is truly lousy. Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for posts on comp.lang.javascript. -- Garrett |