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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13007 > unrolled thread

call by reference

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

Contents

  call by reference Andreas Bergmaier <andber93@web.de> - 2012-03-23 13:56 +0100
    Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 07:10 -0700
    Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-23 15:23 +0000
      Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 09:28 -0700
        Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-23 19:41 +0000
          Re: call by reference Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-23 13:43 -0700
            Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-23 21:18 +0000
              Re: call by reference BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 15:23 -0700
              Re: call by reference Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-23 15:27 -0700
                Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-24 00:19 +0000
                  Re: call by reference Norman Peelman <npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com> - 2012-03-28 06:43 -0400
                    Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-28 14:50 +0000
                      Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-28 18:06 +0300
                        Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-28 15:57 +0000
                          Re: call by reference Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-28 23:22 +0200
                            Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-29 07:18 +0000
                              Re: call by reference Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-29 13:34 +0200
                                Re: call by reference David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 18:30 -0700
                                  Re: call by reference Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-03 00:09 +0200
                                    Re: call by reference David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-04-02 17:43 -0700
                              Re: call by reference Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2012-03-30 00:49 -0800
                          Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-28 13:33 -0700
                Re: call by reference John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 11:34 +0000
              Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-26 22:46 +0300
                Re: call by reference Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-26 18:38 -0700
                  Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-27 05:13 +0300
                    Re: call by reference Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-27 18:31 +0200
                      Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-27 21:31 +0300
                        Re: call by reference Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-27 21:03 +0200
                        Re: call by reference "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 22:03 -0700
          Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 07:34 -0700
            Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-25 15:53 +0000
      Re: call by reference Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:15 -0700
    Re: call by reference BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-23 13:03 -0700
    Re: call by reference Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-23 23:02 +0100
      Re: call by reference John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 11:40 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13007 — call by reference

I know, JavaScript does not support call-by-reference. Every function 
invocation does call-by-value, even if that value is a reference value 
to an array-/function-/plain-Object, and not a primitive.

Yet, there is a javascript thing that stores values by reference: the 
arguments object.

  > function kill(a) { for (var i=0;i<a.length;i++) a[i]=false; }
  > function x(a,b,c) { kill(arguments); return[a,b,c] };
  > x(true,true,true)
  [false, false, false]

I did not assign to a, b or c. Can this be termed "call-with-references" 
or something?

  Andreas Bergmaier

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13008

Andreas Bergmaier wrote:
> [ ... ]
> Yet, there is a javascript thing that stores values by reference: the
> arguments object.
>
>   > function kill(a) { for (var i=0;i<a.length;i++) a[i]=false; }
>   > function x(a,b,c) { kill(arguments); return[a,b,c] };
>   > x(true,true,true)
>   [false, false, false]
>
> I did not assign to a, b or c. Can this be termed "call-with-references"
> or something?

Sounds like a good name.

Wow.  I'd always insisted that JS has no form of call-by-reference.
I'd never noticed that it actually does have this one.

  -- Scott

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

#13009

Andreas Bergmaier wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I know, JavaScript does not support call-by-reference. Every function 
> invocation does call-by-value, even if that value is a reference value 
> to an array-/function-/plain-Object, and not a primitive.

JavaScript DOES support call-by-reference.

All objects are called by reference:

<script type='text/javascript'>

var myObj = {};

myObj.myValue = 7;
alert(myObj.myValue); // 7

function f(a) {
  a.myValue = 33;
};

f(myObj);
alert(myObj.myValue); // 33

</script>

> Yet, there is a javascript thing that stores values by reference: the 
> arguments object.

This is just a special example of the general fact showen above.


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

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

#13010

"Evertjan." wrote:
> Andreas Bergmaier wrote:
>> I know, JavaScript does not support call-by-reference. Every function
>> invocation does call-by-value, even if that value is a reference value
>> to an array-/function-/plain-Object, and not a primitive.
>
> JavaScript DOES support call-by-reference.
>
> All objects are called by reference:

No, references are passed by value.  It's perhaps a subtle
distinction, but it's quite important.  This means that in Javascript,
unlike in some languages, you cannot do this:

    var f = function(out x) { // Error -- no output params
      x = "changed";
    }

    var t = "original";
    f(t);
    alert(t); // t == "changed";

The value passed as a parameter to the function is a *copy* of the
reference to an object.  There's no notion of an output parameter.
Some languages have such facilities.  Others do not.  Until I saw the
OP, I thought that Javsacript did not.  But Andreas has shown that the
`arguments` object provides an exception to this.  The exception seems
to be small.  It only happens when you pass the `arguments` object to
another function which treats it like an array and reassigns its
elements.  We couldn't modify the above code to work in JS without
introducing another function and the only references that could be
changed by another function are the ones used as parameters.  But it's
an exception nonetheless:

    var f = function(a) {
      a[0] = "changed";
    }

    var g = function(t) {
      f(arguments);
      alert(t); // t is "changed";
    }

    g("original");


Very interesting.

  -- Scott

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

#13012

Scott Sauyet wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> "Evertjan." wrote:
>> Andreas Bergmaier wrote:
>>> I know, JavaScript does not support call-by-reference. Every function
>>> invocation does call-by-value, even if that value is a reference value
>>> to an array-/function-/plain-Object, and not a primitive.
>>
>> JavaScript DOES support call-by-reference.
>>
>> All objects are called by reference:
> 
> No, references are passed by value.  It's perhaps a subtle
> distinction, but it's quite important.  This means that in Javascript,
> unlike in some languages, you cannot do this:

[...]

Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer and not the value.

The fact is, 
that in Javascript objects are passed by their pointer. 

In other words, their pointer IS their value.

So this clearly is passing by reference.

That in othr languages you can choose 
does not mean that in Javascript objects are not passed by reference.

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

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

#13014

On 23 Mar 2012 19:41:10 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>Scott Sauyet wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> "Evertjan." wrote:
>>> Andreas Bergmaier wrote:
>>>> I know, JavaScript does not support call-by-reference. Every function
>>>> invocation does call-by-value, even if that value is a reference value
>>>> to an array-/function-/plain-Object, and not a primitive.
>>>
>>> JavaScript DOES support call-by-reference.
>>>
>>> All objects are called by reference:
>> 
>> No, references are passed by value.  It's perhaps a subtle
>> distinction, but it's quite important.  This means that in Javascript,
>> unlike in some languages, you cannot do this:
>
>[...]
>
>Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
>is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer and not the value.

     Nope.  It is passing in such a way that the actual parameter can
be changed (the one in the call).

>The fact is, 
>that in Javascript objects are passed by their pointer. 

     The question is whether that pointer value can be changed.  If it
can, it is call-by-reference.  If not, it is call-by-value.

     Note that it is irrelevant whether a pointer value can be used to
change another value as in passing an object reference and modifying
one of the object's properties.

>In other words, their pointer IS their value.

>So this clearly is passing by reference.

     No.  See the test page.  If objects were passed by reference in
JavaScript, then Fiddle()'s change of the value of the parameter would
change the actual parameter, too.  If you run it, you will see that it
is not changed.

>That in othr languages you can choose 
>does not mean that in Javascript objects are not passed by reference.

     The two are disconnected.

***** Start of Test Page *****
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>

<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
  <title>2012-03-23: Object Parameters</title>
</head>

<body>

<script type="text/javascript">

function Fiddle
 (
 FiddleWithThis
 )
  {
  var StartValue=FiddleWithThis;
  if (typeof(FiddleWithThis)=="object")
    FiddleWithThis=ThatObject;
  else
    FiddleWithThis="fiddled";
  alert("FiddleWithThis changed: "+(FiddleWithThis!=StartValue));
  }

var SomeString="unchanged";
Fiddle(SomeString);
alert("SomeString="+SomeString);

var ThatObject=new Date(2001,1-1,1);
var SomeObject=new Date();
Fiddle(SomeObject);
alert("SomeObject="+SomeObject);

</script>

</body>

</html>
***** End of Test Page *****

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13015

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
>> is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer 
>> and not the value.
> 
>      Nope.  

"Nope"? 
Could you speak normal English in this international NG, please. 

And why? 
Do you know my book?

> It is passing in such a way that the actual parameter can
> be changed (the one in the call).

"actual"? Are there non-actual parameters in javascript?

Please explain what we should call the passing of an object in 
javascript.

== Is it by value?

No, because you cannot change the object as such.

== Is it by reference?

Yes, because you can change the object's properties and methods,
which are in fact the "values" of an object.

So I maintain that objects are passed by reference.

<script type='text/javascript'>

var a = {x:9};
var b = {y:19};

function increment(p,z) {
  p[z]++;
};

increment(a,'x');

increment(b,'y');

alert(a.x); // 10
alert(b.y); // 20


</script>


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

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

#13018

On 3/23/2012 2:18 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>> Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
>>> is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer
>>> and not the value.
>>
>>       Nope.
>
> "Nope"?
> Could you speak normal English in this international NG, please.
>
> And why?
> Do you know my book?
>
>> It is passing in such a way that the actual parameter can
>> be changed (the one in the call).
>
> "actual"? Are there non-actual parameters in javascript?
>
> Please explain what we should call the passing of an object in
> javascript.
>
> == Is it by value?
>
> No, because you cannot change the object as such.
>

if we define an object as a "reference type", then the "object 
reference" is being passed by-value.


> == Is it by reference?
>
> Yes, because you can change the object's properties and methods,
> which are in fact the "values" of an object.
>

this only goes so far as to say that one has a reference to the object's 
data (IOW, it is not being "physically" passed in the same manner as, 
say, a C struct).


> So I maintain that objects are passed by reference.
>

"passing by reference" generally refers to the idea that it is the 
variable itself which is being passed by reference.

when passing an object, one is passing a reference to the object, and 
not to the variable holding the object.

these sorts of distinctions are important.


> <script type='text/javascript'>
>
> var a = {x:9};
> var b = {y:19};
>
> function increment(p,z) {
>    p[z]++;
> };
>
> increment(a,'x');
>
> increment(b,'y');
>
> alert(a.x); // 10
> alert(b.y); // 20
>
>
> </script>
>

this example does not show "pass by reference", it shows that one has "a 
reference to the object" (which is itself passed "by value").


what *would* show "pass by reference", would be if this were to work:
function increment(x)
	{ x++; }
var x=3;
increment(x);
alert(x); // 4

given it does not (one will still see 3 here), one can conclude that it 
is not using "pass by reference".

this is in-fact the default behavior in some languages (such as VB and 
Perl), but is relatively uncommon (most languages use "pass by value" 
instead, despite objects generally being "references").


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_by_reference#Call_by_reference


note that many languages that do support pass-by-reference, do so via 
explicit syntax, for example:
foo(&x);
foo(ref x);
foo(out x);
...

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

#13019

On 23 Mar 2012 21:18:37 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>> Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
>>> is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer 
>>> and not the value.
>> 
>>      Nope.  
>
>"Nope"? 
>Could you speak normal English in this international NG, please. 

     No, I actually can not *speak* English on USENET as it is a
written medium.

     (Your language snarking is not very nice.)

>And why? 
>Do you know my book?

     No.

>> It is passing in such a way that the actual parameter can
>> be changed (the one in the call).
>
>"actual"? Are there non-actual parameters in javascript?

     No.

     Actual parameters are the parameters in a call.  The parameters
as declared in the function are called formal parameters.

>Please explain what we should call the passing of an object in 
>javascript.
>
>== Is it by value?
>
>No, because you cannot change the object as such.

     Yes, because you can not change the formal parameter value and
have it reflect on the actual parameter.

>== Is it by reference?
>
>Yes, because you can change the object's properties and methods,
>which are in fact the "values" of an object.

     No, because <same as above>.  That that value is a pointer is
irrelevant.

>So I maintain that objects are passed by reference.

     Sorry, but you have it reversed.

><script type='text/javascript'>
>
>var a = {x:9};
>var b = {y:19};
>
>function increment(p,z) {
>  p[z]++;
>};
>
>increment(a,'x');
>
>increment(b,'y');
>
>alert(a.x); // 10
>alert(b.y); // 20
>
>
></script>

     The code does not change the value of a or b.  That it changes
the value of something that they point to is irrelevant.

     This might make my point better.  Write a function that swaps two
pointer values.  Here is the driver code:

var Obj1=new Date(2001,1-1,1);
Var Obj2=new Date();
var Obj1Save=Obj1;
var Obj2Save=Obj2;

Swap(Obj1,Obj2);

alert((Obj1==Obj2Save) && (Obj2==Obj1Save));

     If you do it right, the alert should display true.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13025

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

>      (Your language snarking is not very nice.)

Being very nice is not the topic of this NG.

Please explain "snarking", is it part of ECMA?

>>>> Nope

Please explain "nope"

>      Sorry, but you have it reversed.

Is that mainstream English?

Why are you sorry?

> Sincerely,

Quite.

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

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

#13101

On 03/23/2012 08:19 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote on 23 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>       (Your language snarking is not very nice.)
>
> Being very nice is not the topic of this NG.
>
> Please explain "snarking", is it part of ECMA?
>
>>>>> Nope
>
> Please explain "nope"
>
>>       Sorry, but you have it reversed.
>
> Is that mainstream English?
>

   It is mainstream slang for 'no' or 'no it is not', 'no I do not want 
to', 'no, I can not', or what ever you want to tack on. It is used here 
in the US as part of routine conversation, specially when being 
difficult (in order to have a little fun at someones expense) with your 
answers. Or even when you are being seriously short with your answers, 
in order to say 'no' ('no, not interested') without coming across too stern.

> Why are you sorry?
>
>> Sincerely,
>
> Quite.
>

-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit

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

#13102

Norman Peelman wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> It is mainstream slang for 'no' or 'no it is not', 'no I do not want 
> to', 'no, I can not', or what ever you want to tack on. It is used
> here in the US as part of routine conversation,

So it is not quite mainstream, 
it is US local slang, an Americanism perhaps.

Local "routine converstation" does not rule out the use of slang,
as seen from a linguistical distance.

> specially when being 
> difficult (in order to have a little fun at someones expense) with
> your answers. Or even when you are being seriously short with your
> answers, in order to say 'no' ('no, not interested') without coming
> across too stern. 

Typically this is local interpretation.

Earlier in this thread I was assured that it just ment "no",
without any additional innuendo. So you contradict that assurance?

Anyhow, for my part this is not specifically about "nope" or "snarking" but  
about using local slang that might be unnecessarily difficult to interprete 
by those NG-users who are less fluent in English.

It is also about discussion by reasoning instead of by claiming more 
experience, or better status.

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

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

#13103

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:

> it is US local slang, an Americanism perhaps.

  "Nope" is hardly slang. It's just informal.

> Earlier in this thread I was assured that it just ment "no", without
> any additional innuendo. So you contradict that assurance?

  There is no innuendo. Nope means no, but is used only in certain
conversational contexs, where it has the meaning "no, in fact that's not
true", "no, in actual fact that's not how it's done", "no, I don't
agree", and so on. That is, nope means just no, but can be used in this
wholly transparent meaning only in certain circumstances, where it
serves a useful conversational function. There's nothing particularly
noteworthy about this -- it's merely an example of a familiar and common
phenomenon in language. 

> Anyhow, for my part this is not specifically about "nope" or
> "snarking" but about using local slang that might be unnecessarily
> difficult to interprete by those NG-users who are less fluent in
> English.

  Sure, as I already said, it's best to avoid obscure local idioms,
slang and other turns of phrase that might cause confusion. But "nope"
is not "local slang" (and neither is "snarking" for that matter). "Nope"
is informal American English, readily understandable to pretty much
anyone.

-- 
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

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

#13104

Aatu Koskensilta wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:
> 
>> it is US local slang, an Americanism perhaps.
> 
>   "Nope" is hardly slang. It's just informal.

Aatu, so it is slang, but hardly so?

And what do you mean by "just" here?
Is it only informal and nothing else,
or is it marginally informal?

btw, where do you get this information?

Slang can mean a lot,
we could discuss that, 
but there is no "formal slang",
so all slang is informal.

The point is it is local slang, with the stress on local,
so one should not use such words in this NG,
it is slang nevertheless.

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

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

#13106

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:

[...]

> so one should not use such words in this NG,

Yep.

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

#13109

Eric Bednarz wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> so one should not use such words in this NG,
> 
> Yep.

Quite.

What about "Yep", Eric?


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

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

#13110

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:

> Eric Bednarz wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
                           ^^^
Please don't use local abbreviations in international news groups.

For your pleasure:
http://yepnopejs.com/

-- 
λ

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

#13162

On Mar 29, 7:34 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
> > Eric Bednarz wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>                            ^^^
> Please don't use local abbreviations in international news groups.
>
> For your pleasure:http://yepnopejs.com/
>

Ugh, I suspect you are making a joke, but have to mention that
"polyfills" are ill-advised and backward. Shouldn't augment host
objects and the pattern requires reproducing the missing feature(s) in
their entirety (which is the last thing most projects need). It's just
another bad idea that has gained "traction" among developers who don't
understand browser scripting (the majority of course).

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

#13179

David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 29, 7:34 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
>> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
>> > Eric Bednarz wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>                            ^^^
>> Please don't use local abbreviations in international news groups.
>>
>> For your pleasure:http://yepnopejs.com/
>
> Ugh,

That might not be proper Breton-ish English. In case my head explodes,
contact Stockton asap for further instructions.

> I suspect you are making a joke,

Yup (have you read this thread?).

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

#13183

On Apr 2, 6:09 pm, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mar 29, 7:34 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> >> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
> >> > Eric Bednarz wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> >>                            ^^^
> >> Please don't use local abbreviations in international news groups.
>
> >> For your pleasure:http://yepnopejs.com/
>
> > Ugh,
>
> That might not be proper Breton-ish English. In case my head explodes,
> contact Stockton asap for further instructions.
>
> > I suspect you are making a joke,
>
> Yup (have you read this thread?).

Nope.  Well, not nearly all of it; but I saw where it went off track. :
(

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web