Thats true, it does look better.
About who's fault it is, I would expect a "foreach" loop not to try to
itterate over an non existant element (at position 0 or whatever), the fact
I am trying to use this nonexistent element later is not so evil IMO :)
for ( var thought in thoughts) { if (thought) alert("I think, therefor I
exist!") }
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> this is by far the better option.
>
> it's not IE's fault that you are trying to reference something that doesn't
> exist. This isn't a bug in IE or MooTools.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Barry van Oudtshoorn <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What about doing something like
>>
>> $each(arr, function(item) {
>> if (item && item.foo) item.foo();
>> })
>>
>> It's more robust and will mean that you can start indexing your arrays
>> from whatever you want.
>>
>>
>> On 15/12/09 08:04, Roman Land wrote:
>>
>> Indeed this code would cause an issue for me, since the issue is not due
>> to referencing of the nonexistent item, rather inside the loop I do
>> something like:
>>
>> $each(arr, function(item, i) {
>> item.foo(); // this will throw an error on undefiled object and stop JS
>> })
>>
>> My workaround by the way is to check weather i == 0 (this is a special
>> array I use where I normally start at position 1).
>>
>> FF's implementation does actually jump over position 0 - starting at 1,
>> that would be logical interpretation of "foreach" vs "for (i =0 ; i <
>> smt.length ; i++)" - where I tell him to begin at position 0 explicitly.
>>
>> Cheers
>> -- Roman
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the code for forEach, implemented into browsers that do not
>>> implement it themselves:
>>>
>>> forEach: function(fn, bind){
>>> for (var i = 0, l = this.length; i < l; i++) fn.call(bind, this[i], i,
>>> this);
>>> }
>>>
>>> as you can see, it loops over each item and calls your function,
>>> passing the array's value at i. This is undefined for your zero value. I
>>> don't know where IE would freak out on this (though it doesn't surprise me
>>> that it might). The code above references yourArray[index] that shouldn't
>>> throw an error...
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Roman Land <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lolz on the kindly:)
>>>>
>>>> Paul, this site is meant to work on all browsers, I currently have a
>>>> work around, this behavior is undesired despite it's roots being in ie
>>>> implementation of foreach.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Roman
>>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2009, at 18:28, Paul Saukas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Roman ,
>>>> >
>>>> > I believe that is an IE issue . I have no problem running your
>>>> > example on IE8 . It just kindly spits undefined out in place of the
>>>> > missing element 0 if i have it display the items, If i do the keys
>>>> > then IE shows 01234 and ff 1234. What version of IE are you using ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
>>
>> - Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Not sent from my iPhone.
>>
>>
>
--
---
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
