Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31799 > unrolled thread

Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 09:48 -0800
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-11 13:48 -0500
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-11 21:47 +0100
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 10:40 +0000
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-12 20:31 +0000
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-12 21:46 +0000
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 13:51 +0100
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:58 +0000
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-13 20:23 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:42 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:26 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:36 +0000
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-14 16:52 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 19:27 +0100
                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:48 +0000
                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-15 16:16 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-15 09:28 -0800
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 09:07 +0100
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-16 09:06 -0800
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-17 00:33 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-16 10:47 +0000
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-16 17:12 +0100
                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-17 20:40 +0000
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-18 10:45 +0100
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-12-19 19:15 +0000
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-20 13:13 +1100
                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:39 +0100
                              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-21 07:03 +1100
                                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:07 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:55 +0000
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:26 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-02 22:39 +1100
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:48 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-02 11:42 +0000
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-02 12:53 +0100
                                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:02 +1100
                                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-01-03 11:36 +0100
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:37 +0100
                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 09:43 -0800
                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-19 19:55 +0100
                          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-19 16:05 -0800
                            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-20 11:28 +0100
                              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 09:44 -0800
                                Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 00:03 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-20 23:08 +0000
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:03 +0100
                                  Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-20 15:24 -0800
                                    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-21 10:01 +0100
                                      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 10:20 -0800
                                        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-22 10:59 +0100
          Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2016-12-13 11:04 -0500
            Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2016-12-13 16:16 +0000
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-12-13 17:26 +0100
              Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2017-01-02 03:58 +0000
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-12-12 12:29 +0700
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-12 16:12 +0100
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2016-12-13 02:06 +0000
    Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 09:33 -0800
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-12-14 18:47 +0100
        Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:07 +0100
      Re: Trying to understand OOP (newbie to OOP) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-14 22:17 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#31909

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 19:55:29 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Dec 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:40:58 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
>> <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA6DFA5882E690eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>>>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:16:20, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
>>>posted:
>>>
>>>>A [good, imho] definition of "ad hominem" is:
>>>>
>>>>Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
>>>>undermine their argument.
>>>
>>>Does that agree with
>>>        <https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem> ?
>> 
>>      Who knows?  Someone who can read Latin.
>> 
>>      I went for the English version, and I think "it" matches fairly
>> well.  (It does miss the case of those traits being relevant to the
>> argument.)
>
>Discussion should be based on evidence and logic, 
>and of an agreed understanding of relevant definitions.
>
>Argumenting by authority or dogma is not sound.
>
>So if you want to use a different definition of 'Argumentum ad hominem',
>do so in discussion, not by pointing to sources in an attempt
>to "proove" the "right definition". That's what religions do/are for.

     Sources can include definitions.  That one did.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31914

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>So if you want to use a different definition of 'Argumentum ad hominem',
>>do so in discussion, not by pointing to sources in an attempt
>>to "proove" the "right definition". That's what religions do/are for.
> 
>      Sources can include definitions.  That one did.
> 

Quite.

But rather than accepting such definition because of authority,
and Wikipedia does not even claim to be such an authority,
in a discussion it suffices to agree upon a definition,
than to argue over its "trueness".

Example: If we both agree the sun to be a mouse, that is still better for a 
fruitfull discussion, than that one of us would claim the sun to be just one 
of a type of heavenly bodies among miriads and the other that it is the 
single true god. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31919

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:28:27 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>So if you want to use a different definition of 'Argumentum ad hominem',
>>>do so in discussion, not by pointing to sources in an attempt
>>>to "proove" the "right definition". That's what religions do/are for.
>> 
>>      Sources can include definitions.  That one did.
>> 
>
>Quite.
>
>But rather than accepting such definition because of authority,
>and Wikipedia does not even claim to be such an authority,
>in a discussion it suffices to agree upon a definition,
>than to argue over its "trueness".

     Posting a reference to a definition that it is a reasonable
assumption that some person/people worked on for a while to get right
is useful.  A half-definition which does not cover corner cases does
not make for good discussion.

>Example: If we both agree the sun to be a mouse, that is still better for a 
>fruitfull discussion, than that one of us would claim the sun to be just one 
>of a type of heavenly bodies among miriads and the other that it is the 
>single true god. 

     I would like to know what definition someone is operating off of.
Referring to outside authority and implicitly asking if that is what
he is operating off of is useful.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31926

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

>      Posting a reference to a definition that it is a reasonable
> assumption that some person/people worked on for a while to get right
> is useful.  A half-definition which does not cover corner cases does
> not make for good discussion.

What nonsense, a definition is the cornerstone of a definition.

[.]
>      I would like to know what definition someone is operating off of.
> Referring to outside authority and implicitly asking if that is what
> he is operating off of is useful.

I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 
and authority, also named faith, is always inferior to reason,
since it must imply the acceptance of undeclared reasoning.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31928

In article <XnsA6E59DBCD57eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 
>
>>      Posting a reference to a definition that it is a reasonable
>> assumption that some person/people worked on for a while to get right
>> is useful.  A half-definition which does not cover corner cases does
>> not make for good discussion.
>
>What nonsense, a definition is the cornerstone of a definition.
>
>[.]
>>      I would like to know what definition someone is operating off of.
>> Referring to outside authority and implicitly asking if that is what
>> he is operating off of is useful.
>
>I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 

This is perfectly good English if somewhat clumsy. One might rather say
"operating from" or "operating with".

-- 
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of 
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people 
who pay no price for being wrong."  --  Thomas Sowell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31935

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 21 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 
> 
> This is perfectly good English if somewhat clumsy. One might rather say
> "operating from" or "operating with".

Well, if clumsiness were "perfectly" good ...

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31929

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:03:38 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Dec 2016 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 
>
>>      Posting a reference to a definition that it is a reasonable
>> assumption that some person/people worked on for a while to get right
>> is useful.  A half-definition which does not cover corner cases does
>> not make for good discussion.
>
>What nonsense, a definition is the cornerstone of a definition.
>
>[.]
>>      I would like to know what definition someone is operating off of.
>> Referring to outside authority and implicitly asking if that is what
>> he is operating off of is useful.
>
>I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 
>and authority, also named faith, is always inferior to reason,
>since it must imply the acceptance of undeclared reasoning.

     Since I did not invent the term, I must use some external source.
There is no way to reason a definition of that sort.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31934

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 21 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 
>>and authority, also named faith, is always inferior to reason,
>>since it must imply the acceptance of undeclared reasoning.
> 
>      Since I did not invent the term, I must use some external source.
> There is no way to reason a definition of that sort.

Well, you could discuss a definition of a word or term,
but more often in a discussion it is about using a definition,
where it suffice to have a mutual agreement about such word.

The art of discussing is more awarding than the silly fight over a "true" 
definition. Shakespeare already smelled that.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31939

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:01:01 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 21 Dec 2016 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>I never "operate off", let alone "operate off of", 
>>>and authority, also named faith, is always inferior to reason,
>>>since it must imply the acceptance of undeclared reasoning.
>> 
>>      Since I did not invent the term, I must use some external source.
>> There is no way to reason a definition of that sort.
>
>Well, you could discuss a definition of a word or term,
>but more often in a discussion it is about using a definition,
>where it suffice to have a mutual agreement about such word.

     And something posted on a Website might go into more detail.  It
is convenient to refer to such instead of typing it all in myself.

>The art of discussing is more awarding than the silly fight over a "true" 
>definition. Shakespeare already smelled that.

     So why do it?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31946

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 21 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>The art of discussing is more awarding than the silly fight over a "true" 
>>definition. Shakespeare already smelled that.
> 
>      So why do it?
> 

Do what? Smell? Discuss?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31837

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 21:47:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>
>Tim Slattery is an identifier. Identifiers do not write Usenet
>articles; people do. Therefore
>  Tim Slattery wrote:
>should be
>  A person named Tim Slattery wrote:
>
>At least, that's what Thomas says below.

Well said!

-- 
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31838

On 2016-12-13, Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> wrote:
> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>Tim Slattery is an identifier. Identifiers do not write Usenet
>>articles; people do. Therefore
>>  Tim Slattery wrote:
>>should be
>>  A person named Tim Slattery wrote:
>>
>>At least, that's what Thomas says below.
>
> Well said!

"Ceci n'est pas un auteur" (The Treachery of Usenet)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31839

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 13 Dec 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2016-12-13, Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> wrote:
>> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>Tim Slattery is an identifier. Identifiers do not write Usenet
>>>articles; people do. Therefore
>>>  Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>should be
>>>  A person named Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>
>>>At least, that's what Thomas says below.
>>
>> Well said!
> 
> "Ceci n'est pas un auteur" (The Treachery of Usenet)?

L'auteur, peut-être? (La trahison de la tulle d'utilisation)



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32047

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> Tim Slattery wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:

>>> Tim Slattery is an identifier. Identifiers do not write Usenet
>>> articles; people do. Therefore
>>>   Tim Slattery wrote:
>>> should be
>>>   A person named Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>
>>> At least, that's what Thomas says below.


>> Well said!

Agreed!

> "Ceci n'est pas un auteur" (The Treachery of Usenet)?

Very nice!  :-)

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31808

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 09:48:34 -0800 (PST), bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:
> What does TWO dots mean in Javascript, exactly? Like, e.style.fontSize - e
> is an object, right? And then?

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Details_of_the_Object_Model>

Bookmark MDN for future reference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31814

JJ wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 09:48:34 -0800 (PST), bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:
>> What does TWO dots mean in Javascript, exactly? Like, e.style.fontSize -
>> e is an object, right? And then?
> 
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Details_of_the_Object_Model>

Sigh. [psf 10.1]

| The content of this article is under discussion. Please provide
| feedback and help us to make this page better: bug 1201380.
 
> Bookmark MDN for future reference.

While it is undoubtedly the best reference material that is available on the 
topic, a lot of work is still to be done there to get rid of the mistakes 
that the Netscape people made in the original JavaScript Guides/References, 
and of the misconceptions people (re)introduced later.  (Just yesterday I 
had to correct yet another “property reference” misconception in the “Deep 
Clone” part of the Object.assign() article.)

At least someone has rewritten the code of the infamously wrong WorkerBee 
example to present a correct emulation of class-based inheritance using 
ECMAScript Ed. 5+ features [1], but the wrong images of it are still there.

[1] <http://stackoverflow.com/a/12593269/855543>
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31829

Stefan Ram wrote:
> Think of someone who already knows what one »+« means, as in »2+4«.
> So, he knows, it evaluates to »6«.
> 
> Now he tries to wrap his head around »2+4+3«. He is nonplussed: [ ... ]

plus 1 for the pun.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31862

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:48:40 AM UTC-6, bit-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
> What does TWO dots mean in Javascript, exactly? Like, e.style.fontSize - e is an object, right? And then?

Guys, please stop fighting, I'm just trying to understand.

So - I'm going with the first answer to my reply - is that information correct? i.e "e" is an object, "style" is an object inside it, and "fontSize" is a property of THAT object.....?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31864

On 14.12.2016 at 18:33, bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:48:40 AM UTC-6, bit-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> What does TWO dots mean in Javascript, exactly? Like, e.style.fontSize - e is an object, right? And then?
> 
> Guys, please stop fighting, I'm just trying to understand.
> 
> So - I'm going with the first answer to my reply - is that information correct? i.e "e" is an object, "style" is an object inside it, and "fontSize" is a property of THAT object.....?

Why don't you verify that yourself?  In a browser it might be as simple as:

  console.log(e, e.style, e.style.fontSize);

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31869

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> On 14.12.2016 at 18:33, bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:
>> So - I'm going with the first answer to my reply - is that information
>> correct? i.e "e" is an object, "style" is an object inside it, and
>> "fontSize" is a property of THAT object.....?
> 
> Why don't you verify that yourself?  In a browser it might be as simple
> as:
> 
>   console.log(e, e.style, e.style.fontSize);

Partial ACK.  Modern browsers have script consoles that allow one to 
inspect referred objects there even in the output of the console.log() 
method.

However, the simplified way in which this is presented might actually 
enforce the misconception of a beginner that objects would reside inside 
other objects, and that property accessors were merely a way to “reach 
deeper inside” an object.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web