Error-free deep property access?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - How can I access the client-side filesystem? (2010-05-11)
Next: apparently wrong function.
From: David Mark on 18 May 2010 23:14 Scott Sauyet wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > A whole lot more nonsense I won't bother responding to... You have nothing to say. > >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> Matt initiated this thread and has rejoined it to discuss interesting >>> ideas. >> His query was asked and answered long ago. Now the two of you have this >> tag team time-wasting going on. It's irritating to see such a display. >> >>> You seem to drop in here just to make pronouncements or insult >>> people. >> Drop in here? I'm #6 on the all-time list. > > Here being, pretty obviously, this thread. Uh, no. Here being this newsgroup. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/about > > >> And 99.9% of my posts are about cross-browser scripting ideas and >> helping beginners. > > And obviously you have no number sense either. There's a tsunami of evidence to the contrary. > >>> Get a life. >> Get a clue. ;) > > Pollywannacracka? ;) No, you don't quite have it. Keep practicing. :)
From: Scott Sauyet on 19 May 2010 07:59 David Mark wrote: > Scott Sauyet wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> A whole lot more nonsense I won't bother responding to... > > You have nothing to say. But I say it with such style! :-) >>> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>>> Matt initiated this thread and has rejoined it to discuss interesting >>>> ideas. >>> His query was asked and answered long ago. Now the two of you have this >>> tag team time-wasting going on. It's irritating to see such a display. > >>>> You seem to drop in here just to make pronouncements or insult >>>> people. >>> Drop in here? I'm #6 on the all-time list. > >> Here being, pretty obviously, this thread. > > Uh, no. Here being this newsgroup. > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/about No, here being this thread. You may think I didn't know what I meant by "here" in the statement you quoted, but I certainly did not mean the newsgroup. You don't get to redefine my words, sorry. -- Scott
From: Matt Kruse on 19 May 2010 09:37 On May 18, 6:31 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Pros: > >> - Simple, concise syntax > >> - Works for the vast majority of common cases > >> - Handles arrays[0], methods(), nested arrays[0][0], and even > >> property names with empty brackets[] > But not those where there is something in-between, which does happen. It's interesting that you skipped entirely my explanation of why a complete solution is not necessarily the goal, and why "close enough" solutions really are good enough - even in science. Your desire for perfection and completeness (not just in this thread, but repeatedly in this group) is often an academic exercise, not a practical one. Finding a case where a solution does not apply does NOT invalidate the solution for all other cases where it DOES apply. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 20 May 2010 21:35 Andrew Poulos wrote: > On 19/05/2010 6:34 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: >> Andrew Poulos wrote: >>> On 18/05/2010 11:42 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>> On May 17, 9:51 am, David Mark<dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> [snip a heap of blithering] >>>>>>> I suppose you still use jQuery as well. :) >>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pseudo-intellectual >>> >>>>>> It's good to see that you are still here trolling with ad-hominem >>>>>> attacks and spewing your same old tired mantra, David. But seriously, >>>>>> isn't it time to grow up, move on, and discuss ideas instead of >>>>>> attacking people? >>> >>>>> Some spin that. >>> >>>> No one here but you -- and maybe your alter-egos -- sees this as spin. >>> >>>>> Who is responsible for moving projects like jQuery, Dojo, etc. >>>>> forward >>> >>>> Their authors and other contributors, mostly. >>> >>> But do you know who? >> >> When I mentioned alter-egos above, I almost explicitly listed Andrew >> Poulos. Considering your clear-cut sympathy for David Mark, I hope >> you won't mind my wondering if you are really just David posting >> anonymously. ISTM he didn't _almost_ list you, he did list you. In fact, you were the sole entry on his "list". I wonder who else I am. :) > > If someone points out glaring technical faults in some code then it > calls the competence of the writer of that code into question. If, after > having been pointed out, the faults are not rectified, then the lack of > competence of the write of the code may be deemed to be a fact. This is > the point that I believe DM is stressing and not whether the write of > the code is a valid human being. > >> So sorry if I don't count your "me too" as a separate vote. > > That's very democratic of you ;-) > > As usual you clip anything that "proves" most of your comments incorrect > and, as seems to be typical of your style, to adopt a strawman rhetoric > device when challenged. Well, for me, Scot Sauyet does not exist. > Yes, I've noticed that too. Time-wasting nonsense masquerading as reasoning. It's almost Kruse-ian. And the misuse of Usenet jargon is irritating as well (e.g. troll, "me too"). Bluster and folly just don't mix.
From: Scott Sauyet on 20 May 2010 22:28
David Mark wrote: > Bluster and folly just don't mix. Pot. Kettle. -- Scott |