On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:22:10 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
* Daniel Friesen [Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:40:16
-0700]:
That's the very definition of an array. An array is a list, the keys
are
indexes. By definition you cannot have an index that does not exist.
If
PHP arrays are sparse, includin
* Daniel Friesen [Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:40:16
-0700]:
That's the very definition of an array. An array is a list, the keys
are
indexes. By definition you cannot have an index that does not exist.
If
PHP arrays are sparse, including numeric ones. They are actually like
hashmaps I think so. I do
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:15:40 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
* Krinkle [Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:51:45 +0100]:
Few points:
* The easiest way to understand it is to consider "sparse arrays" to
not
exist in javascript.
It doesn't throw an exception if you try it, but it's not supposed
to
be
* Dmitriy Sintsov [Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:15:40
+0400]:
In Chrome, executing the following code:
var a = [];
a[0] = 'a';
a[2] = 'c';
worked, however debugger inspector shows 'undefined' elements between
real elements of array. And the length is counted for 0..last element,
including the undefs. How
* Krinkle [Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:51:45 +0100]:
Few points:
* The easiest way to understand it is to consider "sparse arrays" to
not
exist in javascript.
It doesn't throw an exception if you try it, but it's not supposed
to
be
posisble, so don't.
In Chrome, executing the following cod
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> * Krinkle [Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:32:51 +0100]:
> Converted all of for..in into $.each(). The most funny thing is that
> $.each() did not work correctly with sparse arrays [], walking with
> "undefs" between real elements. While for..in used to
* Krinkle [Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:32:51 +0100]:
Converted all of for..in into $.each(). The most funny thing is that
$.each() did not work correctly with sparse arrays [], walking with
"undefs" between real elements. While for..in used to work fine
(FF,Chrome,IE8,IE9). So I had to convert sparse
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:23:13 -0700, Krinkle wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Friesen
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
var jqgmap = [];
for ( var mapIndex in jqgmap ) {
This is VERY bad JavaScript coding practice. Please use $.each().
T
On 19.03.2012 17:23, Krinkle wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Friesen
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
var jqgmap = [];
for ( var mapIndex in jqgmap ) {
This is VERY bad JavaScript coding practice. Please use $.each().
This is rather exagge
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Krinkle wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Friesen > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
>> wrote:
>> var jqgmap = [];
>>
>>> for ( var mapIndex in jqgmap ) {
>>>
>>
>> This is VERY bad JavaScript coding practice. Plea
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Friesen
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
> wrote:
> var jqgmap = [];
>
>> for ( var mapIndex in jqgmap ) {
>>
>
> This is VERY bad JavaScript coding practice. Please use $.each().
>
This is rather exaggerated. Even more when l
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:07:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
* Daniel Friesen [Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:21
-0700]:
Autoloading classes is not possible. Even if every browser supported
getters and we could use them to dynamically load classes, this would
require synchronous http calls. Which ar
* Daniel Friesen [Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:21
-0700]:
( function( $, mw ) {
} )( jQuery, mediaWiki );
I modified all of three modules: main, view and edit module to the
recommended pattern.
http://pastebin.com/1kS6EyUu
http://pastebin.com/WQzBTw6W
http://pastebin.com/UqpTAvZ8
However, the exe
* Daniel Friesen [Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:21
-0700]:
Autoloading classes is not possible. Even if every browser supported
getters and we could use them to dynamically load classes, this would
require synchronous http calls. Which are absolutely HORRIBLE because
they
block the entire JS thread and
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:54 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
wrote:
Hi!
I've tweaked my code few times, trying to make it simpler: got rid of
some closure calls and left only one dynamic module load at client-side.
http://pastebin.com/UxyifLmx
http://pastebin.com/q3Tm6Ajd
http://pastebin.com/4emMD
Hi!
I've tweaked my code few times, trying to make it simpler: got rid of
some closure calls and left only one dynamic module load at client-side.
http://pastebin.com/UxyifLmx
http://pastebin.com/q3Tm6Ajd
http://pastebin.com/4emMDBS6
Still, it gives me headaches, because mw.loader.using( 'ext.
On 18.03.2012 18:26, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
replaced 'new MarkerController(...)' calls to 'new
mw.jqgmap.MarkerController(...)' calls left from incomplete refactoring
of early working (non-broken) revision, however refactored separate view
/ edit modules code still does not work, with the same
Hi!
Can a JavaScript / ResourceLoader guru explain what's wrong with my code?
Module definitions at server side:
http://pastebin.com/8cmRbNxe
modules are loaded correctly by the following code:
http://pastebin.com/MFWk6znv
It is checked many times during extension development, 'localBasePath'
a
18 matches
Mail list logo
