Initializing a global namespace object
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.
Next: Volunteers Requested for open source publishing project
From: John G Harris on 29 Jul 2010 12:42 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 at 06:02:44, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark wrote: <snip> >And as has been explained to you, you have no counter to that. JS >(referring to ES3 of course) has no concept of namespaces. You may >implement whatever you want in JS and call it whatever you want, but >that doesn't make it part of JS. <snip> Equally, lists are not part of JS. Nor are stacks. Nor are trees. Nor are user interfaces. John -- John Harris
From: David Mark on 29 Jul 2010 18:25 On Jul 29, 10:00 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 29, 8:21 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Richard Cornford wrote: > >>> On Jul 29, 3:16 am, Scott Sauyet wrote: > >>>> Why do you think it could cause problems? If you didn't > >>>> understand it, I am disagreeing entirely that there is no > >>>> such thing as a namespace in JS; I believe the construct > >>>> under question ("var MYNS = MYNS || {}") defines a > >>>> namesapce. Who would this confuse, and why? > > >>> You would end up with people talking about 'javascript namespaces'; > >>> things that don't actually exist [ ... ]. > > >> I wasn't arguing for the phrase "javascript namespaces", only for > >> "namespaces" and since I never try to introduce a "namespace" function > >> or treat "namespace" as a keyword, I don't see the potential for > >> confusion. Perhaps that's just me being naive. > > >> My only recent point in this thread was to counter David Mark's > >> assertion that: > > >> | They should also understand that there is no such thing as a > >> | "namespace" in JS. It's a global variable referencing an object. > > > And as has been explained to you, you have no counter to that. JS > > (referring to ES3 of course) has no concept of namespaces. You may > > implement whatever you want in JS and call it whatever you want, but > > that doesn't make it part of JS. > > Well. so much for your being done with this discussion, huh? :-) Ah, the indefatigable match announcer. > > As already made abundantly clear to anyone who cares, the constructs > under question are namespaces in JS under any reasonable definition of > "namespace". No one ever suggested that there was some native > language support for namespaces. > > >> With the way discussions often proceed around here, I'd be crazy to > >> complain about a single instance of pedantry! :-) > > > So you were being pedantic and you'd be crazy to complain about it? I > > don't follow. > > You really need to learn to read before you respond. No, you need to learn to write more clearly. That last paragraph made no sense at all in context.
From: David Mark on 29 Jul 2010 18:26 On Jul 29, 12:42 pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 at 06:02:44, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark > wrote: > > <snip>>And as has been explained to you, you have no counter to that. JS > >(referring to ES3 of course) has no concept of namespaces. You may > >implement whatever you want in JS and call it whatever you want, but > >that doesn't make it part of JS. > > <snip> > > Equally, lists are not part of JS. > Nor are stacks. > Nor are trees. > Nor are user interfaces. > Correct on all counts.
From: Scott Sauyet on 30 Jul 2010 07:42 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 29, 10:00 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > David Mark wrote: >> Well. so much for your being done with this discussion, huh? :-) > > Ah, the indefatigable match announcer. No, I just like to point out inconsistencies and other intellectual dishonesties. You just happen to be a particularly easy source of both. >>>> With the way discussions often proceed around here, I'd be crazy to >>>> complain about a single instance of pedantry! :-) > >>> So you were being pedantic and you'd be crazy to complain about it? I >>> don't follow. > >> You really need to learn to read before you respond. > > No, you need to learn to write more clearly. That last paragraph made > no sense at all in context. Perhaps you don't know what "context" means. Did you actually read my response to Richard Cornford, and his post I responded to, or did you zero in on a few choice keywords? For the record, the post I responded to included the following, which I quoted immediately above the section of my post we're discussing: | You would end up with people talking about 'javascript namespaces'; | things that don't actually exist (at least in ES3, introducing the | possibility that they are talking about JScript.net or something), | when they wanted to be talking about 'namespaces' implemented with (or | in) javascript (which certainly can exist). The distinction may seem | pedantic but when the use of a few extra words can eliminate ambiguity | then that justifies using those words. You've said before that English is your native language; you do recognize the connection between the words "pedantic" and "pedantry", right? -- Scott
From: David Mark on 30 Jul 2010 07:55
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 29, 10:00 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > David Mark wrote: > >> Well. so much for your being done with this discussion, huh? :-) > > > Ah, the indefatigable match announcer. > > No, I just like to point out inconsistencies and other intellectual > dishonesties. An irritating pundit, basically. And the use of the term "intellectual dishonesties" in this context (or in Usenet in general) is beyond laughable. Do you read your stuff before you post? Try it in front of a mirror. ;) > You just happen to be a particularly easy source of > both. No, I've been consistent to a fault here for years. You are simple a very green participant with wide eyes and a big mouth. > > >>>> With the way discussions often proceed around here, I'd be crazy to > >>>> complain about a single instance of pedantry! :-) > > >>> So you were being pedantic and you'd be crazy to complain about it? I > >>> don't follow. > > >> You really need to learn to read before you respond. > > > No, you need to learn to write more clearly. That last paragraph made > > no sense at all in context. > > Perhaps you don't know what "context" means. Then again, perhaps I do. > Did you actually read my > response to Richard Cornford, and his post I responded to, or did you > zero in on a few choice keywords? The former of course. > For the record, the post I > responded to included the following, which I quoted immediately above > the section of my post we're discussing: For the record? Here we go again with "then I said this, then he said that, then I said this". Was the basic discussion really that hard to follow? > > | You would end up with people talking about 'javascript namespaces'; > | things that don't actually exist (at least in ES3, introducing the > | possibility that they are talking about JScript.net or something), > | when they wanted to be talking about 'namespaces' implemented with > (or > | in) javascript (which certainly can exist). The distinction may seem > | pedantic but when the use of a few extra words can eliminate > ambiguity > | then that justifies using those words. > > You've said before that English is your native language; That should go without saying. > you do > recognize the connection between the words "pedantic" and "pedantry", > right? > Seeing as I used the word "pedantic" to describe your ridiculous, seemingly unending quest to prove an irrelevant point in a discussion that has long reached its logical conclusion, what do you think? Again, your tacked-on "oh, I was really right after all" response about "pedantry" made no sense in context. Re-read what I said (and what I responded to) and please don't feel the need to copy and paste it. The posts don't go away, so there's no need for instant replays. ;) |