On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Josh McDonald dzn...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick take on it:
Trying to improve on some already neat code...
function randomLetter() : String
{
const noVowels : String = BCDFGHJKLMNPQRSTVWXYZ;
That's better (also cleaner and faster). I just don't trust IEEE floats :)
-Josh
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Manish Jethani manish.jeth...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Josh McDonald dzn...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick take on it:
Trying to improve on some already neat
I'm sure someone will inevitably suggest a better method, but the following
would do the trick:
1) Create UID with UIDUtil.createUID()
2) Strip '-' symbols / Strip vowels
3) Truncate to 12 characters (if there weren't enough after stripping
vowels, just repeat steps 1 and 2 and append to current
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Brendan Meutzner
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:25 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Generating Random key
I'm sure someone will inevitably suggest a better method
Or look at mx.utils.UIDUtil.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Tracy Spratt
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 2:46 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Generating Random key
Yeah, to get that specific format, you will need
Awesome guys your guidance help me in achieving this withing 30 minutes, it
is working now
Thanks for your help again
Anuj
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:19 PM, anuj181 anuj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I need to work on a piece of code in which whenever user clicks on the
button , the code should
So what did you end up putting together? Should post the code here for the
next guy...
Brendan
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:41 PM, anuj sharma anuj...@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome guys your guidance help me in achieving this withing 30 minutes,
it is working now
Thanks for your help again
Anuj
Hi Brendan
makes sense to put the code :-), With the format I was looking for following
code works perfectly for me, I am not sure thats the right way of coding but
this is working for my purpose. I am pretty sure there can be far far better
way for this
Anuj
A quick take on it:
function randomLetter() : String
{
const noVowels : String = BCDFGHJKLMNPQRSTVWXYZ;
return noVowels.charAt(Math.round(Math.random() *
(noVowels.length - 1)));
}
function
Heh, but if you're REALLY going for unreadable lines of code, you might as
well go all the way:
function repeat(n:Number, f:Function) : Array {
return n 1 ? repeat(n-1, f).concat(f()) : [f()];
}
function createUID():String {
return repeat(4, function(){ return repeat(3, function(){ return
Stupid ECMAScript... It'd be much more readable in Ruby/Lisp/Ioke/etc :)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Doug McCune d...@dougmccune.com wrote:
Heh, but if you're REALLY going for unreadable lines of code, you might as
well go all the way:
function repeat(n:Number, f:Function) : Array {
...Although some features from JS1.7 / 1.8 would be a big step in the right
direction.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Josh McDonald dzn...@gmail.com wrote:
Stupid ECMAScript... It'd be much more readable in Ruby/Lisp/Ioke/etc :)
--
Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls.
What makes me cringe is the anonymous function there, the tertiary
expressions, and inline typing and instantiating. Variables get moved
to the top of the function anyway - so why give your self the headache
of creating them inline.
4-5 extra lines wont kill ya will it?
On Jan 5, 2009,
Not at all :)
I just like functional programming style, and in my case I have a version of
times(n,f) in a util class. The version I posted above is actually no good
on AVM2 due to the lack of tail-calls. A longer but clearer, more flexible
(and iterative, hence stack-safe) version I actually use
14 matches
Mail list logo
