I'm afraid you are fundamentally misunderstanding the role and usage of `this` in JavaScript. Please review the link Steve provided.
>> If you remove the comment to make the call active, and comment out the 3 lines below it you will be able to recreate the problem Reading carefully, Steve suggested this alteration: >> update_entire_line.call(this); Looking up 'Function.prototype.apply' and 'Function.prototype.call' methods may also be helpful for you. On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Just.A.Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I did. You may find the "update_entire_line" call commented out > and the three lines in the body of that function > copied under the comment. If you remove the comment to make the call > active, and comment out the 3 lines below > it you will be able to recreate the problem. > > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:23:37 PM UTC-6, Just.A.Guy wrote: >> >> >> doing some step by step debug continue, I found the code that calls the >> "ready" routine >> The statement is "this.ready". >> >> Then I noticed that the prototype for the function object does not >> include the shadowRoot, nor the "this" from the call. >> That told me a lot. >> Then I did some step-by-step in one of the listener routines. It >> also received the "this" from the function proto-type definition. >> >> Therefore, I decided to pass the "this" parameter as part of all >> functions which I call as sub-functions from one of the polymer callback >> routines. >> >> And just before I add a listener to an object in the "ready" routine I >> attach a reference to the ready routines "this". That way >> when the listener receives control it will have address to the >> elements global values. >> >> I guess another "more elegant" way to do this is to extend the >> "function" definition into a "polyFunction" and add the >> reference to the document fragment to the extended function's >> prototype so it can be reference without having to pass it as a formal >> argument. >> But implementing that is too complicated for me. So I will stick to >> the dumb way of doing it. >> >> You really don't want all of those internal functions on the global >> options list. It reveals too much of the internal structure of the object. >> Because as I understand it, if a function is on the global options >> list then a script program can call those functions from >> a reference to the object (i.e. getElementById). >> >> >> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/1f00faf5-a511-417b-ab33-d2161f4a7579%40googlegroups.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAHbmOLYgDNotD%2B0gMg29ykj7tO8zL0%3DfQHmA9jyO2v_H0G5c2g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
