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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #36410 > unrolled thread

Objects what are they.

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

Contents

  Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 02:16 -0700
    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 02:40 -0700
    Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-25 09:12 -0700
      Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-25 18:37 +0100
        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 23:41 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 23:56 -0700
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:00 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 10:45 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 04:37 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 19:41 +0100
                Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 21:11 +0200
                  Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 13:23 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 23:32 +0200
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 15:11 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 15:24 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-27 11:52 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:17 +0100
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-27 05:00 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-27 05:06 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:08 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-28 05:03 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-28 18:11 +0200
                Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 03:43 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 14:11 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> - 2019-04-29 11:15 -0400
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 08:41 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> - 2019-04-29 15:16 -0400
                          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 15:56 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 16:08 -0700
                              Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 09:44 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 08:31 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 13:48 +0200
        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:25 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:30 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 01:06 -0700
        Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-26 07:41 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2019-04-26 15:39 +0000
            Re: Objects what are they. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-04-26 23:23 +0200
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:25 +0100
                Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 04:10 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 04:17 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 14:39 +0100
                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 10:16 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-28 10:53 +0100
                          Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 07:08 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 11:03 +0100
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 14:43 +0100
          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 19:36 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-28 08:53 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 10:35 +0100
          Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-27 17:45 +0200
            Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 10:19 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-27 20:57 +0200
                Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 06:53 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 15:08 +0100
                    Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 19:21 +0200
                      Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 20:06 +0100
                        Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 23:09 +0200
                          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 10:39 +0100
                            Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 14:06 +0200
                              Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 05:26 -0700
                                Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 19:14 +0200
                                  Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 12:07 -0700
                                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 14:29 +0100
                                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-05-01 07:52 -0700
                                        Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 18:34 +0100
                                Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 18:27 +0100
                              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 18:22 +0100
                                Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 22:25 +0200
                                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 15:15 +0100
                  Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 18:31 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 09:42 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 19:42 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 17:35 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 00:18 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:00 -0700
                          Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 06:16 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:38 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:21 -0700
            Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-28 08:43 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-28 19:02 +0200
      Re: Objects what are they. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-04-26 23:07 +0200

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#36498

John G,

>>Who is talking about a function here ?    I'm not, but for some reason you
>>are.  Why ?
>
> Because that's what Julio was commenting on, all triggered by the much
> earlier sentence
>
>  "It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned:
>   By returning a *pointer* to it."

:-) I was not even thinking about /what/ did the returning (rather 
irrelevant), just that /something/ would do so.

> Well, yes, I have. The Reference type is a "Specification Type".
> As the note at the beginning of sec 6.2.4 says
> [snip]

My apologies, but I read that as a "well, no". :-(

Two things:
1) while it might be invisible in day-to-day use, we are now specifically 
talking about it.
2) It was /you/ who threw it into the conversation. :-)

Also, we where talking about a reference/pointer being used/stored.  How and 
where or where it came from is fully irrelevant (though the former is 
interesting info to me).

The question is, are references/pointers used or not ?     And if they are 
not produced by such a "newSynth()" whatamacallits, what /does/ it produce ?

> That's why it's important to correct urban legends; they can
> be difficult to check.

You seem to have done so.   Why don't you share that information so we can 
use the correct terminology in regard to whatever is used to pass objects, 
strings and arrays (to name a few) around to and from functions and that 
stuff like that "newSynth()" thingamagotchy.

> The rottenness was a misunderstanding. It's only a very
> particular (useless) use of references that has been banned.

What kind of misunderstanding ?   And was it ours ?   Or yours ?

Also, you're rather vague there "a very particular (useless) use of 
references" ?     I cannot even be sure we are talking about the same thing 
(don't think so by the way), and therefore if its of any relevance. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36499

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 14:06:22 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:

> The question is, are references/pointers used or not ?

And again: a pointer is NOT a reference, aka those two are NOT synonyms,
and conflating them is a very serious for how basic mistake.

Indeed, pointers just DO NOT EXIST in JS, write that on your wall: at best
pointers may be how references are implemented by a JS runtime engine when
the implementation language itself has pointers...

And water is wet...

HTH,

Julio

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

#36504

Julio

I see your word (*plonk*) is worth nothing - not surprising by the way. :-p

> And again: a pointer is NOT a reference, aka those two
> are NOT synonyms, and conflating them is a very serious
> for how basic mistake.

Another one of your "You're WRONG!" <full stop> claims I see (nothing to 
support it).   As such I'm just going to igore it.

> Indeed, pointers just DO NOT EXIST in JS,

... directly followed by the statement that "references" are just 
bullshit-bingo words^W^W concepts which are implemented as pointers.

Great.    Denying something exists, and confirming its existance in the same 
sentence.  Well done!  :-)

Kiddo, I could not care less which names a language uses for what it does, 
and even less for language nazis which deny the existance of something 
simply because its not exposed by that name to the user.

But, I think I'm done with you.   You're either not willing or just 
incapable of explaining your POV (or shoot holes into mine), which makes you 
worthles to me.   So, goodbye.

Too bad though, as I would not have minded to learn something new. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36508

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:14:11 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:
> Julio

> Another one of your "You're WRONG!"

MORON, you've missed the part that water is wet: aka there is no worse deaf...

If you don't even know what a pointer is vs. what a reference is, first of
all cut the crap (you and that other moron) and learn to use question marks
appropriately instead of just pontificating bullshit, then lying and plain
insulting, you piece(s) of spamming shit.  --  Not to mention, nobody pays
me to give you BASIC programming lessons, you fucking stupid cunts, nor this
is the right group(!), nor you deserve even half of it, you stupid cunts
and resident spammers...

> Too bad though, as I would not have minded to learn something new. :-(

You piece of retarded shit, you rather stop crapping all over the place.

BTW, among other things, not using a real name and email address is VERY
bad etiquette on Usenet, and for obvious reasons you morons: so get a real
name to begin with, or you better mind getting the fuck out of here...

And now go fuck yourself, you and your pals.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#36524

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:


  <snip>
>If you don't even know what a pointer is vs. what a reference is, first of
>all cut the crap
  <snip>

Three different mainstream programming languages have three different
meanings and definitions of the word "reference", in addition to the
ordinary dictionary meaning.

If you don't know that you shouldn't be pontificating on the subject
of references.

  John

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

#36528

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 15:29:10 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>   <snip>
> >If you don't even know what a pointer is vs. what a reference is, first of
> >all cut the crap
>   <snip>
> 
> Three different mainstream programming languages have three different
> meanings and definitions of the word "reference", in addition to the
> ordinary dictionary meaning.

That's not only beside the point, you stupid cunt still rewriting history,
it's also and again plain incompetent crap and the demonstration that you
are at least too incompetente to understand and discern in these matters:
but NO, there is NO SUCH THING *in programming* (*) as different meanings
of the term "reference", which, as I've said multiple times now, is a
SEMANTIC notion to begin with... but, apparently, you just can't even parse
that.

(*) BTW, the very idea that you could look it up in the Collins is just
fucking LUDICROUS, and the ultimate proof of your utter cluelessness if
not disingenuity, if any such proof was needed...

> If you don't know that you shouldn't be pontificating on the subject
> of references. 

You are simply a moron and unteachable, that's what's clear by now...

Julio

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

#36539

On Wed, 1 May 2019 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 15:29:10 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
>> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>   <snip>
>> >If you don't even know what a pointer is vs. what a reference is, first of
>> >all cut the crap
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> Three different mainstream programming languages have three different
>> meanings and definitions of the word "reference", in addition to the
>> ordinary dictionary meaning.
>
>That's not only beside the point, you stupid cunt still rewriting history,
>it's also and again plain incompetent crap and the demonstration that you
>are at least too incompetente to understand and discern in these matters:
>but NO, there is NO SUCH THING *in programming* (*) as different meanings
>of the term "reference", which, as I've said multiple times now, is a
>SEMANTIC notion to begin with... but, apparently, you just can't even parse
>that.

You're being ignorant. A C++ Reference is a synonym or alias. An
ECMAScript Reference is a specification notion. A Java reference is a
pointer value whose semantic meaning is the thing pointed to.

These are very different meanings of the word "reference". At the very
least, people who use the word when they don't mean ECAMScript
reference should say they mean something else. Especially people who
shout at anyone else who misuses the ECMA 262 terminology.


>(*) BTW, the very idea that you could look it up in the Collins is just
>fucking LUDICROUS, and the ultimate proof of your utter cluelessness if
>not disingenuity, if any such proof was needed...

The ECMAScript Standard has a section whose title is :
  3 Normative References
You are seriously saying you can't use a dictionary to find out what
the second word means. ROFL

Or perhaps your native language is not English and you don't know what
"in addition to" means.


>> If you don't know that you shouldn't be pontificating on the subject
>> of references. 
>
>You are simply a moron and unteachable, that's what's clear by now...

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

#36506

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 05:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 14:06:22 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:
>
>> The question is, are references/pointers used or not ?
>
>And again: a pointer is NOT a reference, aka those two are NOT synonyms,
>and conflating them is a very serious for how basic mistake.
>
>Indeed, pointers just DO NOT EXIST in JS, write that on your wall: at best
>pointers may be how references are implemented by a JS runtime engine when
>the implementation language itself has pointers...

Ah, all is revealed! A Julio reference is an implementation thing that
can be the Identity operator. When it is, values can be an object.
(Cue for Julio to say !*@*@ and @**!!@.)

  John

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

#36505

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:06:11 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>John G,
  <snip>
>
>> Well, yes, I have. The Reference type is a "Specification Type".
>> As the note at the beginning of sec 6.2.4 says
>> [snip]
>
>My apologies, but I read that as a "well, no". :-(

You said 
  "unless you have a different explanation for me/us."
so I said
  "Yes" (I have).


>Two things:
>1) while it might be invisible in day-to-day use, we are now specifically 
>talking about it.
>2) It was /you/ who threw it into the conversation. :-)

It's invisible to your program. Your code can't create, manipulate, or
use a Reference. They are used only to tell you what your code will do
in a conforming implementation of ECMAScript.


>Also, we where talking about a reference/pointer being used/stored.  How and 
>where or where it came from is fully irrelevant (though the former is 
>interesting info to me).

On seeing  a = b  the compiler generates low-level code that makes it
happen. Anything resembling a Reference that is created in that code
goes out of scope when the assignment action has finished. So,
References are not stored.


>The question is, are references/pointers used or not ?     And if they are 
>not produced by such a "newSynth()" whatamacallits, what /does/ it produce ?

"newSynth()" produces a notional record containing an object in its
[[Value]] field. The Reference tells the low-level code where to copy
that value to. 

As far as your program's code is concerned, "newSynth()" produces an
object which is then stored in a property as its value. 


>> That's why it's important to correct urban legends; they can
>> be difficult to check.
>
>You seem to have done so.   Why don't you share that information so we can 
>use the correct terminology in regard to whatever is used to pass objects, 
>strings and arrays (to name a few) around to and from functions and that 
>stuff like that "newSynth()" thingamagotchy.

I've been saying it for several years : The value of a variable or
property can be an object. ECMA 262 says so very clearly, something
else I've been pointing out for several years.


>> The rottenness was a misunderstanding. It's only a very
>> particular (useless) use of references that has been banned.
>
>What kind of misunderstanding ?   And was it ours ?   Or yours ?
>
>Also, you're rather vague there "a very particular (useless) use of 
>references" ?     I cannot even be sure we are talking about the same thing 
>(don't think so by the way), and therefore if its of any relevance. :-(

Back in ECMA 262 5th edition it said in section 11.2.3, Function
Calls,
"NOTE The returned result will never be of type Reference if func is a
native ECMAScript object. Whether calling a host object can return a
value of type Reference is implementation-dependent. If a value of
type Reference is returned, it must be a non-strict Property
Reference."

That permission for host objects was removed in the next edition.

  John

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

#36510

John G,

>>My apologies, but I read that as a "well, no". :-(
>
> You said
>  "unless you have a different explanation for me/us."
> so I said
>  "Yes" (I have).

To which I responded that that explanation of yours read like a "No, I have
none".

Putting (a lot of) words in a reply doesn't automatically mean you're
explaining something.    If it would you would see a /lot/ more "lorum
ipsum" post here.

> It's invisible to your program.

True.  But its there and is used /all the time/.    Even if most users of
the language are not aware of it.    Trying to reason that they do not exist
because you cannot readily see them is disingenious.    With the same logic
I could reason that viri and bacteria do not exist.  :-)

> Anything resembling a Reference that is created in that code
> goes out of scope when the assignment action has finished. So,
> References are not stored.

Bullshit.   It doesn't even make sense.    You have an assignement action
(of a string, array or object) to a variable and as soon as the asignment
finishes you cannot use that string, array or object anymore because the
reference, link or whatever you want to call it suddenly disappears ?

>>The question is, are references/pointers used or not ?     And if they
>>are not produced by such a "newSynth()" whatamacallits, what /does/
>> it produce ?
>
> "newSynth()" produces a notional record containing an object in
> its [[Value]] field. The Reference tells the low-level code where
> to copy that value to.

I'm sorry, but I didn't ask you to come up with a new set of bullshit-bingo
words.  I asked you what it returned.

And again bullshit.  There is /no way/ you can store a full object (or
string or array) into that "[[Value]]" (four byte ?) field.   So what /does/
get stored in that ?

And an interesting notation, that "[[Value]]".  In a few other languages I
could imagine someone tried to signify a double indirection there.

> I've been saying it for several years : The value of a variable
> or property can be an object.

And I'm saying it can't.    See above for an explanation.

> That permission for host objects was removed in the next edition.

Missing: A definition of what a "host object" is.

You sure as hell can "store objects" in there, as you have shown with your
own code.   But somehow you've dragged something totally different - though
with the same name, just to keep it simple - into our conversation, muddying
the whole thing.  Why ?   And why haven't you made a distinction between
that "host object" and the other "object"s from the start ?    I'm sure as
hell ain't no mindreader you know.


But I think I'm going to terminate our conversation here.    You have too
much fun throwing a bunch of big words around that have zero meaning to me,
while evading answering straight-forward, simple questions. And I don't
think that a further exchange of messages will change anything in that
regard.

Bummer.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36525

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:25:47 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

  <snip>
>> Anything resembling a Reference that is created in that code
>> goes out of scope when the assignment action has finished. So,
>> References are not stored.
>
>Bullshit.   It doesn't even make sense.    You have an assignement action
>(of a string, array or object) to a variable and as soon as the asignment
>finishes you cannot use that string, array or object anymore because the
>reference, link or whatever you want to call it suddenly disappears ?

I'm afraid RW has forgotten what he wrote, correctly, at the start of
this discussion. 
  "A Reference consists of three components, the base value component,
   the referenced name component, and the Boolean-valued strict
   reference flag."

There's no way that a variable or property is going to hold an object,
*and* a property name, *and* a boolean all at the same time. And
there's no way for your program to ask for it to be done.

To repeat : ECMAScript References are used purely to help describe
what will happen when you run your program.


  <snip>
>> I've been saying it for several years : The value of a variable
>> or property can be an object.
>
>And I'm saying it can't.    See above for an explanation.
  <snip>

a) The ECMAScript Standard requires implementations (browsers or
whatever) to execute your program so that it appears that a value is
an object.

b) Earlier in this thread I described how an implementation could do
this without putting a pointer in the value field.


Finally : It's difficult to explain things to someone when I've no
idea what they do and don't know, and what preconceived ideas they
have, unfortunately.

  John

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

#36481

Julio,

> The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.

To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p

But, in one message you:
- do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
detail")
- replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
- not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(

Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
smarts for that. :-)

> And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> the reason why I call you a troll,

Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).

As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
will just ignore it.

> It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.

:-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.

But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
be telling me new stuff.

But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
supporting arguments for it.

So, are you up to it ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36482

On Monday, 29 April 2019 18:32:13 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:
> Julio,
> 
> > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> 
> To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p

No, that isn't, you utter moron.

What a parade of fucking retards...

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#36485

Julio,

>> > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
>>
>> To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
>
> No, that isn't, you utter moron.

Lolz^2

Remember this one (Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT ):

>> It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned: By
>> returning a *pointer* to it.
>
> *That* is an implementation detail, you other resident fucking troll.

I can be wrong, but it looks to me you just turned around as a leaf in the 
wind, just to be able to sprout another "Youre WRONG!" <full stop> blurbs.

Kiddo, you are either really bad at trolling, or just a moron.

> *Plonk*

Lolz!   Thats what I call a win-win situation for me: either I do have to 
read another of your junk, or you prove that your word isn't worth shite ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Don't think I did not notice that you haven't come up with anything 
supporting your "facts" in this post either - even though I explicitily 
asked for them.   That does tell whole chapters you know. :-)

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

#36494

Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> Julio,
> 
> > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> 
> To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> 
> But, in one message you:
> - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> detail")
> - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> 
> Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> smarts for that. :-)
> 
> > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > the reason why I call you a troll,
> 
> Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> 
> As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> will just ignore it.
> 
> > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> 
> :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> 
> But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> be telling me new stuff.
> 
> But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> supporting arguments for it.
> 
> So, are you up to it ?
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.

And a structure that is easy to understand.

I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.

Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 

Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"

Obj. Synth: 
   //  Prop. 
   Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
   //  SubProp/obj. 
   Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
   //  SubProp/obj. 
   Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
   //  SubProp.     
   Note[](NoteNr, Notename); 

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

#36495

Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 02:35:55 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > Julio,
> > 
> > > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> > 
> > To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> > 
> > But, in one message you:
> > - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> > detail")
> > - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> > - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> > 
> > Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> > of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> > smarts for that. :-)
> > 
> > > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > > the reason why I call you a troll,
> > 
> > Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> > none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> > quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> > 
> > As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> > as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> > will just ignore it.
> > 
> > > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> > 
> > :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> > groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> > 
> > But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> > come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> > see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> > be telling me new stuff.
> > 
> > But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> > this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> > supporting arguments for it.
> > 
> > So, are you up to it ?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rudy Wieser
> 
> I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.
> 
> And a structure that is easy to understand.
> 
> I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.
> 
> Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 
> 
> Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
> Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
> Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"
> 
> Obj. Synth: 
>    //  Prop. 
>    Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
>    //  SubProp/obj. 
>    Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
>    //  SubProp/obj. 
>    Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
>    //  SubProp.     
>    Note[](NoteNr, Notename);

Right now i am looking on this page, i think is apparent that functionality is second rated in javascript. There is alot of syntax there basicly none is needed, you replaced something selfevident. With a constructed semantic that should be followed to accomplish the most rudamentary tasks.

https://medium.freecodecamp.org/a-complete-guide-to-creating-objects-in-javascript-b0e2450655e8

Honestly this look like the worst nonesense to me, and the syntax just awful.
let employee = Object.create(orgObject,
  {
    name:{
      value: 'EmployeeOne'
    }
  });

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-8IuUkJJc

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

#36500

Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 09:18:18 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 02:35:55 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> > Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > > Julio,
> > > 
> > > > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> > > 
> > > To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> > > 
> > > But, in one message you:
> > > - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> > > detail")
> > > - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> > > - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> > > 
> > > Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> > > of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> > > smarts for that. :-)
> > > 
> > > > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > > > the reason why I call you a troll,
> > > 
> > > Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> > > none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> > > quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> > > 
> > > As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> > > as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> > > will just ignore it.
> > > 
> > > > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> > > 
> > > :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> > > groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> > > 
> > > But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> > > come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> > > see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> > > be telling me new stuff.
> > > 
> > > But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> > > this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> > > supporting arguments for it.
> > > 
> > > So, are you up to it ?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Rudy Wieser
> > 
> > I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.
> > 
> > And a structure that is easy to understand.
> > 
> > I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.
> > 
> > Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 
> > 
> > Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
> > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
> > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"
> > 
> > Obj. Synth: 
> >    //  Prop. 
> >    Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
> >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> >    Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
> >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> >    Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
> >    //  SubProp.     
> >    Note[](NoteNr, Notename);
> 
> Right now i am looking on this page, i think is apparent that functionality is second rated in javascript. There is alot of syntax there basicly none is needed, you replaced something selfevident. With a constructed semantic that should be followed to accomplish the most rudamentary tasks.
> 
> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/a-complete-guide-to-creating-objects-in-javascript-b0e2450655e8
> 
> Honestly this look like the worst nonesense to me, and the syntax just awful.
> let employee = Object.create(orgObject,
>   {
>     name:{
>       value: 'EmployeeOne'
>     }
>   });
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-8IuUkJJc

The whole idea behind javascript objects just seem so wrong in so many ways, is this really how you do things and are you content with it???

It is driving me nuts and i just started using them.

//Synth Object START
var mySynth = [];   
mySynth[i] = newSynth();   
mySynth[i].Bank[j] = newBank(); 
mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k] = newSynth(); 
mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l] = newInstrument();
//Synth Object END

function newSynth(i){
mySynth[i] = {
    SynthName: "",
};
return mySynth;
}

function newBank(j){
Bank[j] = {
    BankName: "",
    BankNr : "",
};
return Bank;
}

function newInstrument(k) {
Instrument[k] = {
    InstrumentName: "",
    BankNr : "",
};
return Instrument;
}

function newNote(l) {
Note[l] = {
    NoteName: "",
    NoteNr : "",
};
return Note;
}

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

#36501

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:00:22 UTC+2, jonas.t...@gmail.com  wrote:
> Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 09:18:18 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> > Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 02:35:55 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> > > Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > > > Julio,
> > > > 
> > > > > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> > > > 
> > > > To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> > > > 
> > > > But, in one message you:
> > > > - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> > > > detail")
> > > > - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> > > > - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> > > > 
> > > > Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> > > > of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> > > > smarts for that. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > > > > the reason why I call you a troll,
> > > > 
> > > > Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> > > > none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> > > > quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> > > > 
> > > > As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> > > > as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> > > > will just ignore it.
> > > > 
> > > > > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> > > > 
> > > > :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> > > > groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> > > > 
> > > > But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> > > > come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> > > > see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> > > > be telling me new stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> > > > this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> > > > supporting arguments for it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, are you up to it ?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Rudy Wieser
> > > 
> > > I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.
> > > 
> > > And a structure that is easy to understand.
> > > 
> > > I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.
> > > 
> > > Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 
> > > 
> > > Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
> > > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
> > > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"
> > > 
> > > Obj. Synth: 
> > >    //  Prop. 
> > >    Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
> > >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> > >    Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
> > >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> > >    Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
> > >    //  SubProp.     
> > >    Note[](NoteNr, Notename);
> > 
> > Right now i am looking on this page, i think is apparent that functionality is second rated in javascript. There is alot of syntax there basicly none is needed, you replaced something selfevident. With a constructed semantic that should be followed to accomplish the most rudamentary tasks.
> > 
> > https://medium.freecodecamp.org/a-complete-guide-to-creating-objects-in-javascript-b0e2450655e8
> > 
> > Honestly this look like the worst nonesense to me, and the syntax just awful.
> > let employee = Object.create(orgObject,
> >   {
> >     name:{
> >       value: 'EmployeeOne'
> >     }
> >   });
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-8IuUkJJc
> 
> The whole idea behind javascript objects just seem so wrong in so many ways, is this really how you do things and are you content with it???
> 
> It is driving me nuts and i just started using them.
> 
> //Synth Object START
> var mySynth = [];   
> 
> mySynth[i] = newSynth();   
> mySynth[i].Bank[j] = newBank(); 
> mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k] = newSynth(); 
> mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l] = newInstrument();
> //Synth Object END
> 
> function newSynth(i){
> 
> mySynth[i] = {
>     SynthName: "",
> };
> return mySynth;
> }
> 
> function newBank(j){
> Bank[j] = {
>     BankName: "",
>     BankNr : "",
> };
> return Bank;
> }
> 
> function newInstrument(k) {
> Instrument[k] = {
>     InstrumentName: "",
>     BankNr : "",
> };
> return Instrument;
> }
> 
> function newNote(l) {
> Note[l] = {
>     NoteName: "",
>     NoteNr : "",
> };
> return Note;
> }

The usual completely fucked up mess... you stupid cunt, who pays you
to spam the Usenet??

*Troll alert*

Julio

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

#36503

Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 15:16:12 UTC+2 skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:00:22 UTC+2, jonas.t...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 09:18:18 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> > > Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 02:35:55 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> > > > Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > > > > Julio,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> > > > > 
> > > > > To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> > > > > 
> > > > > But, in one message you:
> > > > > - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> > > > > detail")
> > > > > - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> > > > > - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> > > > > 
> > > > > Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> > > > > of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> > > > > smarts for that. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > > > > > the reason why I call you a troll,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> > > > > none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> > > > > quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> > > > > 
> > > > > As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> > > > > as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> > > > > will just ignore it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> > > > > 
> > > > > :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> > > > > groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> > > > > come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> > > > > see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> > > > > be telling me new stuff.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> > > > > this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> > > > > supporting arguments for it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, are you up to it ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Rudy Wieser
> > > > 
> > > > I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.
> > > > 
> > > > And a structure that is easy to understand.
> > > > 
> > > > I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.
> > > > 
> > > > Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 
> > > > 
> > > > Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
> > > > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
> > > > Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"
> > > > 
> > > > Obj. Synth: 
> > > >    //  Prop. 
> > > >    Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
> > > >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> > > >    Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
> > > >    //  SubProp/obj. 
> > > >    Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
> > > >    //  SubProp.     
> > > >    Note[](NoteNr, Notename);
> > > 
> > > Right now i am looking on this page, i think is apparent that functionality is second rated in javascript. There is alot of syntax there basicly none is needed, you replaced something selfevident. With a constructed semantic that should be followed to accomplish the most rudamentary tasks.
> > > 
> > > https://medium.freecodecamp.org/a-complete-guide-to-creating-objects-in-javascript-b0e2450655e8
> > > 
> > > Honestly this look like the worst nonesense to me, and the syntax just awful.
> > > let employee = Object.create(orgObject,
> > >   {
> > >     name:{
> > >       value: 'EmployeeOne'
> > >     }
> > >   });
> > > 
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-8IuUkJJc
> > 
> > The whole idea behind javascript objects just seem so wrong in so many ways, is this really how you do things and are you content with it???
> > 
> > It is driving me nuts and i just started using them.
> > 
> > //Synth Object START
> > var mySynth = [];   
> > 
> > mySynth[i] = newSynth();   
> > mySynth[i].Bank[j] = newBank(); 
> > mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k] = newSynth(); 
> > mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l] = newInstrument();
> > //Synth Object END
> > 
> > function newSynth(i){
> > 
> > mySynth[i] = {
> >     SynthName: "",
> > };
> > return mySynth;
> > }
> > 
> > function newBank(j){
> > Bank[j] = {
> >     BankName: "",
> >     BankNr : "",
> > };
> > return Bank;
> > }
> > 
> > function newInstrument(k) {
> > Instrument[k] = {
> >     InstrumentName: "",
> >     BankNr : "",
> > };
> > return Instrument;
> > }
> > 
> > function newNote(l) {
> > Note[l] = {
> >     NoteName: "",
> >     NoteNr : "",
> > };
> > return Note;
> > }
> 
> The usual completely fucked up mess... you stupid cunt, who pays you
> to spam the Usenet??
> 
> *Troll alert*
> 
> Julio

Poor Julio, did the two lines make you confused
mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k] = newInstrument(); 
mySynth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l] = newBank();

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

#36502

Den tisdag 30 april 2019 kl. 02:35:55 UTC+2 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 18:32:13 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > Julio,
> > 
> > > The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.
> > 
> > To use your own words "*That* is an implementation detail". :-p
> > 
> > But, in one message you:
> > - do exactly what you accuse others of (talking about "implementation 
> > detail")
> > - replacing one word for a similar one and crow victory.
> > - not giving the OP anything better than that he's already got. :-(
> > 
> > Kiddo, I would like to believe you're just doing exactly what you accuse me 
> > of doing (trolling), but looking at the above I don't think you've got the 
> > smarts for that. :-)
> > 
> > > And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is
> > > the reason why I call you a troll,
> > 
> > Lolz.   Kiddo, we've crossed paths three times in the last 5 months, and 
> > none of the subjects where about anything comparable.    But be my guest and 
> > quote what you are referring to there (I won't hold my breath though).
> > 
> > As for you calling me a troll ?    You can call me anything you want.  But 
> > as long as I do not see anything from you that supports your accusations I 
> > will just ignore it.
> > 
> > > It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.
> > 
> > :-) You know whats funny about that ?     Yesterday I got a "thank you" from 
> > groovee for trying to explain that stuff to him.
> > 
> > But if you think its all "bullshit" you are (again, second time) free to 
> > come up with something better.   I'm actually looking forward to it.    You 
> > see, I'm convinced that there is a *lot* that I do not know, and you could 
> > be telling me new stuff.
> > 
> > But there is one thing I do not do: accept someones claims of things being 
> > this-or-that "because I say so". You have to have present proof, or at least 
> > supporting arguments for it.
> > 
> > So, are you up to it ?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rudy Wieser
> 
> I think my main point with the thread have been should there not be a structure to look at "when you want to construct or read out data" from an object.
> 
> And a structure that is easy to understand.
> 
> I claim my structure "declaration" of an object is easy to learn,understand you learn howto make one "you know howto make all.
> 
> Read out and in data "is the same way as javascript". But the object is contained in an easily understandable context. ***I am not even sure the context for object structure is there in javascript***, mainly because structure is ***A ONEWAY LINKED LIST**** 
> 
> Synth[i].Syntnname="Roland D50"
> Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].InstrumentName="Violin"
> Synth[i].Bank[j].Instrument[k].Note[l].Notename="Cymbal"
> 
> Obj. Synth: 
>    //  Prop. 
>    Synth[](Synthname,(Bank)) 
>    //  SubProp/obj. 
>    Bank[](BankNr,Bankname,(Instrument)) 
>    //  SubProp/obj. 
>    Instrument[](InstrumentNr,Instrumentname,(Note)) 
>    //  SubProp.     
>    Note[](NoteNr, Notename);

One last thing, if you have a constructor that tells how the object built why would you need all this shit like new, prototype, create, push the whole paradigm seems totally superfluos and just a mind construction that comes in the way from programming?

If i want to add an object that would be arr[arr.length++]="Yeah it is an assignment";

Why would you ever need any other syntax the object constructor and an assignment off a value?

***I DO NOT GET IT, TELL ME***

What is the purpose of all the syntax and semantics, javscripts in special seem superfluos, why is it there?
I mean

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web