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: Garrett Smith on 9 Aug 2010 01:13 On 2010-08-08 09:30 PM, David Mark wrote: > 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. > I can't see why that's worth arguing. I wrote something clear and you got 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. > > It certainly is not. > No. Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for on-topic posts on javascript. If you don't like that, or post things that are continually off-topic material for whatever reason (stubbornness, arrogance, insanity, and it doesn't really matter what your personal problems are) then don't post any more. Your post is off-topic. Off-topic material, such as interspersed unrelated emotional remarks, within a technical discussion are plaguing this group. The spam at least appears in a separate thread, so it can be easily ignored. Your trash appears all over the place. -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 9 Aug 2010 01:21 On Aug 9, 1:13 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-08 09:30 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I can't see why that's worth arguing. I wrote something clear and you > got what I meant. You can't see much of anything it seems. > > > > >>>> 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. > > No. Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for on-topic > posts on javascript. Again with the generalization. > > If you don't like that, or post things that are continually off-topic > material for whatever reason (stubbornness, arrogance, insanity, and it > doesn't really matter what your personal problems are) LOL. Pot calling the kettle black again. > then don't post > any more. > > Your post is off-topic. Shut up, twit. Now that's off-topic, but still much needed at this point. > > Off-topic material, such as interspersed unrelated emotional remarks, > within a technical discussion are plaguing this group. So stop popping in to technical discussions with personal attacks (and then whining when you get smacked on the nose). > The spam at least > appears in a separate thread, so it can be easily ignored. Your trash > appears all over the place. I assume you've read the next post and are now crying in a corner somewhere. :)
From: Garrett Smith on 9 Aug 2010 01:34 On 2010-08-08 09:54 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Aug 8, 8:01 pm, Garrett Smith > [...] > > 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 > That's a good example of an on-topic post, so you're capable of posting on-topic. There's a big difference between that and obnoxious noise, massive overquoting, and lazy and sloppy formatting that makes up the majority of your postings. -- Garrett
From: Garrett Smith on 9 Aug 2010 01:49 On 2010-08-08 09:34 PM, David Mark wrote: > 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. Try repeating that looking in the mirror. Commenting on obvious typos is about what I'd > expect from you. > Is there a contradiction here? Either you're concerned about using correct terminology or you're not. Frankly I don't care about what you call it; you've shown repeated unwillingness to hold civil technical discussion, trying to discuss anything with you is pretty much a waste of time anyway, so call it whatever you want and I'll happily ignore you. if you tried to correct Jorge and then posted wrong information again (that's about the fourth post in a row from you I've read today that follows that pattern). -- Garrett
From: Garrett Smith on 9 Aug 2010 02:09
On 2010-08-08 10:21 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Aug 9, 1:13 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-08-08 09:30 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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> [...] > > So stop popping in to technical discussions with personal attacks (and > then whining when you get smacked on the nose). > >> The spam at least >> appears in a separate thread, so it can be easily ignored. Your trash >> appears all over the place. > > I assume you've read the next post and are now crying in a corner > somewhere. :) It sounds like you want to get a little more personal. Sissy flame wars are off-topic. If you wanted to meet in person -- and that goes for anyone -- you could have just emailed me rather than post a sissy drama queen act with keystrokes. You have my email address. I'm not getting hit in the nose and although your trash hurts my ideals for this NG, I'm surely not crying. -- Garrett |