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: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 18:05 On Aug 8, 6:01 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, you simply can't grasp the difference, which is why you are a truly lousy communicator. > > Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for posts on > comp.lang.javascript. That's a ridiculous generalization.
From: Garrett Smith on 8 Aug 2010 20:01 On 2010-08-08 03:05 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Aug 8, 6:01 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > No, you simply can't grasp the difference, which is why you are a > truly lousy communicator. > What I wrote was unambiguous and clear. Apparently I communicated effectively because you understood exactly what I meant. >> >> Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for posts on >> comp.lang.javascript. > > That's a ridiculous generalization. It is neither; it is a universal truth. And it is the reason that your initial argument was lousy one. Anyone who has read the group for several years, has seen the use of specification terminology to describe the language in posts from Cornford, Lasse, Lahn, John G Harris. Though none from you. You can't really invalidate specification terminology by claiming that the specification was not intended for programmers; all that does is justify your apparent unwillingness to RTFM. -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 9 Aug 2010 00:30 On Aug 8, 8:01 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-08 03:05 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 6:01 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > No, you simply can't grasp the difference, which is why you are a > > truly lousy communicator. > > What I wrote was unambiguous and clear. In your mind. To anyone else reading this, it is likely clear that you have poked your head into a technical discussion to add nothing but your own personal and juvenile nonsense. > Apparently I communicated > effectively because you understood exactly what I meant. You try too hard. > > > > >> Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for posts on > >> comp.lang.javascript. > > > That's a ridiculous generalization. > > It is neither; it is a universal truth. It certainly is not. > > And it is the reason that your initial argument was lousy one. Nope. > > Anyone who has read the group for several years, has seen the use of > specification terminology to describe the language in posts from > Cornford, Lasse, Lahn, John G Harris. Of course, you missed the point again. Each discussion in this group has a context. There are times when such language is appropriate and times when it is not. > Though none from you. That's not true. Just another gross generalization on your part (and a lame attempt to puff up your own ego). > > You can't really invalidate specification terminology by claiming that > the specification was not intended for programmers; all that does is > justify your apparent unwillingness to RTFM. No such unwillingness is apparent; not even to you. You are simply a basket case who has tried and failed to make a career out of memorizing specifications. As we've seen over and over, such memorization (and incessant regurgitation, often in inappropriate contexts) does not buy you a thing.
From: David Mark on 9 Aug 2010 00:34 On Aug 8, 4:55 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > 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 wellnamedones:named-named-function- > expressions :-) Nice catch, jackass. Commenting on obvious typos is about what I'd expect from you. > > > 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 ? Your plan has been heard and shot down. Get better Jorge.
From: David Mark on 9 Aug 2010 00:54
On Aug 8, 8:01 pm, Garrett Smith [...] > > Anyone who has read the group for several years, has seen the use of > specification terminology to describe the language in posts from > Cornford, Lasse, Lahn, John G Harris. Though none from you. > I cite the specification when the context calls for it. For example, three years ago you asked me to explain to you why 0 is not less than null (presumably to avoid RTFM yourself). http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/55dd0547c67e99a1 Bets that I won't bother to dig up an old post to deflect your dubious claims usually "pay". Not your lucky day it seems. :) |