Hi again ColinFine,
Just had another test that make me understand what you quote:
var _f=function(){return true};
var F;
if(_f()===true) F=function(){alert('F true');}
else F=function(){alert('F false');};
F();
var _ff=true;
if((function(){return false})()===true) { function FF(){alert('FF
true');} }
else { function FF(){alert('FF false');}; }
FF();
function F(){alert('new F');}
F();
F=function(){alert('last F');}
F();
first alert return true, second false.
For the next alert, received: 'F true' and the last one 'last F'.
But it seems not abnormal, while assigning a function to a variable is
done at execution time, and defining a statement functionis done at
parse time.
I think this is what was saying crokford in your quote.
But that seems not abnormal, and even not EVIL ... but that's my poor
opinion.
--
david
On 27 mai, 12:48, david <david.brill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi ColinFine,
>
> > It doesn't seem to me that these imply that there will be a different
> > scope, but I'm not sure.
>
> I translate badlly my though (and I'm probably wrong). The created
> function in both case have the same scope (I think too).
>
> According to what you quote, I made the following test:
> var _f=function(){return true};
>
> var F;
> if(_f()===true) F=function(){alert('F true');}
> else F=function(){alert('F false');};
> F();
>
> var _ff=true;
>
> if((function(){return false})()===true) { function FF(){alert('FF
> true');} }
> else { function FF(){alert('FF false');}; }
> FF();
>
> and in both case it work as expected : first 'true' and second
> 'false'.
> Means you could use function in the if test, inside the if statement
> and both way of writting the function have the same result.
>
> > - "function statmenes are subject to 'hoisting'. This means that
> > regardless of where a function is placed, it is moved to the top of
> > the scope in which it is defined. ... It also prohibits the use of
> > function statements in if statements. ... "
>
> This part doesn't seems to me a bad things, it permit to define a
> function after it's usage (in the created code, not during execution
> of code of course).
>
> I've perhaps miss something ???
>
> --
> david
>
> On 26 mai, 14:06, ColinFine <colin.f...@pace.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 12:41 pm, david <david.brill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > @ColinFine,
>
> > > > According to Flanagan's book (section 8.1.2) the optional function-
> > > > name in a function literal is not assigned to a variable, but
> > > > apparently lives in a special namespace of its own that allows the
> > > > function to refer to itself. So unless the function is recursive, the
> > > > above is identical to
>
> > > > var myFunction = function() {alert('hi');}
>
> > > > and more or less identical to
>
> > > > function myFunction() {alert('hi')}
>
> > > I try to refer to myFunction recursivelly and in both case it works
> > > (test done on FF3.0).
> > > could you send me an exemple of what you say ?
>
> > No I can't. I'm just quoting from the books.
>
> > > I'd only though the difference was in the scope of the created
> > > function depending on the way it is declare as a *statement* or as a
> > > *litteral*.
>
> > I didn't go into the reasons why Crockford advises not using function
> > statements. They are:
> > - "the second form makes it clear that [myFunction] is a variable
> > containing a function value. To use the language well, it is important
> > to understand that functions are values"
> > - "function statmenes are subject to 'hoisting'. This means that
> > regardless of where a function is placed, it is moved to the top of
> > the scope in which it is defined. ... It also prohibits the use of
> > function statements in if statements. ... "
>
> > It doesn't seem to me that these imply that there will be a different
> > scope, but I'm not sure.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
