I really need to read up on stuff, before commenting in this thread, clearly my knowledge was falling behind.
The onevar switch still exists ... it's getting kind of pointless though, if we are not provided with a switch to turn off the "move all vars to top" opinion. On Jan 18, 11:47 am, MRoderick <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm ... more reports seem to suggest that the documentation on > jslint.com is out of date. > > Bummer, I LIKED the onevar switch, allowing for gradual adoption. > > On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, MRoderick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Anyone using jslint should really consider all the options available > > athttp://www.jslint.com/lint.html > > > To switch off Crockfords opinion on only having one var declaration > > per function, add this to the top of the file you're working with: > > /*jslint onevar:false */ > > > Since it's still in the documentation, I am assuming that that option > > is still available, unless it's an oversight from Douglas with the > > most recent update. > > > /Morgan > > > On Jan 14, 7:12 pm, cancel bubble <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > At jslint.com (which I use from time to time depending on where I'm > > > working) > > > with no apparent checkbox option to disable this test. > > > > Can you all help me out and let me know why this is a good idea? > > > > Part of my job is supporting existing apps that utilize A LOT of JS (some > > > legacy) and some of these files are thousands of lines. I can no longer > > > jslint these files because I get a critical error at say, line 50 (the > > > first > > > occurence of a var not at the top of a func). If I were to fix that, I > > > would just get another one at line 93. Then 140. Repeat ad nauseum. I'm > > > not going to go through an fix these in huge files, I will just stop > > > linting > > > them because I'm not going to get any support for regression testing. > > > > Why is this not an optional test? I'm looking for an answer other than > > > "because Crockford says so and I'm swinging from his nuts." > > > > I understand that it's good practice to declare all your vars at the top > > > of > > > your function, what I don't understand is why you can't toggle this check > > > when you're dealing with old, large code. You can't get past the first > > > error this trips up unless you edit your code (which works just fine). -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
