Yes, #curry is one of the options. You could also "freeze" i by
explicitly storing it in a separate closure (for each enumeration):
for ( var i = 0; i < contacts.length; i++ ) {
...
Event.observe( thisLI, "click", (function(i) {
return function(){ openContact( contacts[i].id ); }
})(i));
...
}
-- kangax
On Jun 30, 8:56 pm, greenie2600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey! I found the Function.curry() method, and it works!
>
> Is this the best way?
>
> On Jun 30, 8:25 pm, greenie2600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > New member here. I've been working with Prototype for a while, and I
> > love it. However, there's one thing I still can't figure out.
>
> > Let's say I have an array of objects, representing contacts in an
> > address book:
>
> > var contacts = [
> > { id: 1, firstName: "Bob", lastName: "Smith" },
> > { id: 2, firstName: "Sue", lastName: "Johnson" },
> > { id: 3, firstName: "Tim", lastName: "Horton" }
> > ];
>
> > I'd like to iterate over this array, create an <li> for each contact,
> > and—here's the tricky part—attach an onclick observer to each <li>,
> > which calls the openContact() function and passes in the ID of the
> > contact that was clicked.
>
> > I understand closures. However, I haven't found an elegant way to
> > solve the problem. This won't work:
>
> > function populateContactsList( contacts )
>
> > var theUL = document.getElementById("addr-book-index");
> > var thisLI = null;
>
> > for ( var i = 0; i < contacts.length; i++ ) {
> > thisLI = document.createElement("li");
>
> > thisLI.appendChild( document.createTextNode( contacts[i].name ) );
> > theUL.appendChild( thisLI );
> > Event.observe( thisLI, "click", function() {
> > openContact( contacts[i].id );
> > } );
> > }
>
> > }
>
> > ...because every call to openContact() will receive 3 as the parameter
> > - the value of contacts[i].id at the time the outer function exits.
>
> > I've been kludging my way around the problem by storing data in the
> > element's id attribute (e.g., <li id="contacts-index-3">Tim Horton</
> > li>), but I'm not entirely happy with this solution. Suggestions?
>
> > For bonus points: I like to use innerHTML to insert new content into
> > the DOM. Yes, it's non-standard, but it's widely supported, and it's
> > much faster than the DOM methods -
> > seehttp://quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html.
> > If you can suggest a clean technique that allows me to keep using
> > innerHTML *and* attach onclick handlers in the way I've described,
> > I'll write a song extolling your greatness.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
