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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33861 > unrolled thread

Inserting a DIV inside another DIV

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

Contents

  Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-22 21:47 -0700
    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-23 12:08 +0200
      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-23 23:19 -0700
        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-24 08:58 +0200
          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-24 08:55 +0100
          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-24 23:16 -0700
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV tony@mountifield.org (Tony Mountifield) - 2017-08-25 09:04 +0000
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-25 15:54 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-27 23:43 -0700
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 11:04 +0100
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 04:02 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-28 06:24 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 07:42 -0700
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:45 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 15:13 +0100
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 10:11 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 07:00 -0700
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 18:24 +0100
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:57 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:51 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-09-02 11:18 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2017-09-11 19:57 -0300
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-12 05:30 -0700
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 14:37 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-12 06:15 -0700
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 15:44 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-09-12 14:51 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 16:38 +0200
                                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-09-12 20:20 +0100
                                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-13 18:47 +0200
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-13 01:20 -0300
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-25 14:33 +0200
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2017-08-26 21:21 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 03:16 +0200
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2017-08-27 11:40 +0100
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-27 04:05 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 16:15 +0200
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 16:27 +0200
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-27 15:42 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-27 14:10 +0100
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-27 15:40 +0200
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 10:50 +0100
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-28 22:35 +0200
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-28 22:53 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 00:27 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 10:16 +0100
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 23:05 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-29 22:51 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-30 00:29 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 16:33 +0100
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 09:57 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 18:05 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 16:33 +0100
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-30 21:43 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-31 10:08 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-31 16:40 +0200
                                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-31 18:37 +0100

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

#33919

John G Harris wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> > but the really devastating bullshit is to think
> >that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it.
> 
> What he means is that JS is not *exactly* the same as Smalltalk.

Seems an arbitrary distinction. Neither is Self. I wonder if the same criticism applies.

> What he has said is that JS is a Functional language whose main use is
> to update a global data structure. 

We have a paradigm describing that already: Imperative

> He thinks that's a sensible thing to say, or hasn't noticed what the language is used for.

I almost wish I knew. It's difficult to glean enough of a position to debate it for me.

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

#33949

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:32:58 PM UTC+5:30, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> That's utter bullshit, but the really devastating bullshit is to think
> that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it.
> 
> Julio

Can you please, coolly and from the beginning, explain what you mean by this? I'm not a *complete* idiot about OOP, I recently read a book about it - however that book was quite old, and as a telling fact, it's index did not have either the word "new" or the word "this" in it!!!!! (which is what I fucking BOUGHT IT FOR!!).

Still...... just *talk*, will ya? (No fighting, guys.)

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

#33974

bit-naughty wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:32:58 PM UTC+5:30, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> 
>> That's utter bullshit, but the really devastating bullshit is to think
>> that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it.

> 
> Can you please, coolly and from the beginning, explain what you mean by this? I'm not a *complete* idiot about OOP, I recently read a book about it - however that book was quite old, and as a telling fact, it's index did not have either the word "new" or the word "this" in it!!!!! (which is what I fucking BOUGHT IT FOR!!).

One cannot explain the inexplicable. You may simply ignore any rumors, 
innuendos, hearsay about JavaScript (JS) opposing the ECMAScript 
Language Specification, particularly the overview section [1].

You may safely stick to what Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript, has 
written [2] and spoken [3] about it.

In a nutshell, JavaScript is a prototype-based, multi-paradigm scripting 
language that is dynamic, and supports object-oriented, imperative, and 
functional programming styles [4].

[1] <https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-overview>

[2] <https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/>
     "I’m not proud, but I’m happy that I chose Scheme-ish first-class 
functions and Self-ish (albeit singular) prototypes as the main 
ingredients. The Java influences, especially y2k Date bugs but also the 
primitive vs. object distinction (e.g., string vs. String), were 
unfortunate."

[3] Interview with Brendan Eich – The Origin of JavaScript 
<https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/124-jsj-the-origin-of-javascript-with-brendan-eich>

     "32:55 - BRENDAN:  "[...] people say JavaScript is powered by Self. 
There was very little Self in fact, because I had so little time. And 
Self has things like lexical scope, so you have no conflation of objects 
and scope ribs, *which JavaScript had and has due to the global object* 
[...]. But I did at least have the sense to make functions first class, 
which Self does, Lisp does. And I realized if I didn’t do that, I didn’t 
have much. I was in such a rush. It was ten days until the demo in front 
of the Engineering team. And I thought, “How am I going to do this and 
make it useful?” I had to lean on a very few concepts that were 
powerful. One was functions, [...] and closures were only latently there 
in the very first version, the other was *objects you could create ad hoc*."

[4] 
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/About_JavaScript>


> 
> Still...... just *talk*, will ya? (No fighting, guys.)
> 

That reminds me of "Imagine", by John Lennon :-)


-- 
Joao Rodrigues

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

#33977

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:58:02 AM UTC+2, Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> One cannot explain the inexplicable.

One can be a moron ad libitum.

Julio

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

#33978

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:58:02 AM UTC+2, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> 
>> One cannot explain the inexplicable.

Of course you can.

However one better does not accept such explanations as valid.

And how could you ever be certain something is inexlicable?

> One can be a moron ad libitum.

Why do you feel the need to demean people to prove your point?

Proving a point on convincing logic and evidence is so much more usefull,
and dos not involve demeaning counterthoughts in your direction.


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

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

#33979

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:38:04 PM UTC+2, Evertjan. wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:58:02 AM UTC+2, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> > 
> >> One cannot explain the inexplicable.
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> However one better does not accept such explanations as valid.
> 
> And how could you ever be certain something is inexlicable?
> 
> > One can be a moron ad libitum.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to demean people to prove your point?

My point was proven long ago, there I am just replying to moron spammer
#999, who was there too.

> Proving a point on convincing logic and evidence is so much more usefull,
> and dos not involve demeaning counterthoughts in your direction.

I have given all needed explanations *already*, and you were there too,
you moron.

Get your head out of your ass.

Julio

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

#33980

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:38:04 PM UTC+2, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>> > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:58:02 AM UTC+2, Joao Rodrigues
>> > wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> One cannot explain the inexplicable.
>> 
>> Of course you can.
>> 
>> However one better does not accept such explanations as valid.
>> 
>> And how could you ever be certain something is inexlicable?
>> 
>> > One can be a moron ad libitum.
>> 
>> Why do you feel the need to demean people to prove your point?
> 
> My point was proven long ago, there I am just replying to moron spammer
>#999, who was there too.

But no, you stated a general principle which I contest as  being wrong.

You replied to the group.


>> Proving a point on convincing logic and evidence is so much more
>> usefull, and dos not involve demeaning counterthoughts in your
>> direction. 
> 
> I have given all needed explanations *already*, 

No, you stated a general principle which I contest as  being wrong.

> and you were there too,
> you moron.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass.

You must have a low self-esteem of yourself?


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

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

#33981

In article <XnsA7EEA0344972Aeejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in
>comp.lang.javascript: 

>> Get your head out of your ass.
>
>You must have a low self-esteem of yourself?

No, just a donkey-fixation.

-- 
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall. "A
reminder that
the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan

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

#33982

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> In article <XnsA7EEA0344972Aeejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>>Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in
>>comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
>>> Get your head out of your ass.
>>
>>You must have a low self-esteem of yourself?
> 
> No, just a donkey-fixation.

How do you know?

I submit your etymology is flawed.

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

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

#33983

In article <XnsA7EEA934DADC6eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> In article <XnsA7EEA0344972Aeejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in
>>>comp.lang.javascript: 
>> 
>>>> Get your head out of your ass.
>>>
>>>You must have a low self-esteem of yourself?
>> 
>> No, just a donkey-fixation.
>
>How do you know?
>
>I submit your etymology is flawed.

He's talking about someone's ass. An ass is a species of donkey, or
maybe the other way around. I suspect he in fact means arse, so it's
unclear why he's talking about donkeys.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

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

#33985

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>>>You must have a low self-esteem of yourself?
>>> 
>>> No, just a donkey-fixation.
>>
>>How do you know?
>>
>>I submit your etymology is flawed.
> 
> He's talking about someone's ass. An ass is a species of donkey, or
> maybe the other way around. I suspect he in fact means arse, so it's
> unclear why he's talking about donkeys.

A fixation at the anal stage might result in excessive tidiness or 
messiness. Freud recognised that 'it is possible for several fixations to be 
left behind in the course of development, and each of these may allow an 
irruption of the libido that has been pushed off - beginning, perhaps, with 
the later acquired fixations, and going on, as the lifestyle develops, to 
the original ones'.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_(psychology)>

Yes, ... that seems to "fit" with the anatomically illusionary "Inserting a 
DIV inside another DIV".


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

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

#33984

Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:38:04 PM UTC+2, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 12 Sep 2017 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:

>>
>>> One can be a moron ad libitum.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to demean people to prove your point?

Ad hominem fallacy is an old recourse used by the likes of Julio, who 
insists that JavaScript is a Functional Programming Language just 
because he wants it to be so.

Functional programming (FP) is a programming paradigm that treats 
computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids 
changing-state and mutable data. [1]. Only these few characteristics of 
FP are sufficient to prove Julio's ideas wrong. And we wouldn't even 
have to go far to understand such a simple concept, because the very 
creator of the JavaScript, Brendan Eich, has written [2] and spoken [3] 
a lot about it during more than 20 years.

> 
> My point was proven long ago, there I am just replying to moron spammer
> #999, who was there too.
> 
>> Proving a point on convincing logic and evidence is so much more usefull,
>> and dos not involve demeaning counterthoughts in your direction.
> 
> I have given all needed explanations *already*, and you were there too,
> you moron.
> 

See? Just more of the same babblings of a pedantic moron. He's given no 
acceptable, reasonable explanation supporting his moronic ideas that JS 
is a FP language, and he never will, because doing so would be like 
trying to explain the inexplicable. :-D


[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming>

[2] <https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/>
     "I’m not proud, but I’m happy that I chose Scheme-ish first-class 
functions and Self-ish (albeit singular) prototypes as the main 
ingredients. The Java influences, especially y2k Date bugs but also the 
primitive vs. object distinction (e.g., string vs. String), were 
unfortunate."

[3] Interview with Brendan Eich – The Origin of JavaScript 
<https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/124-jsj-the-origin-of-javascript-with-brendan-eich>
     "32:55 - BRENDAN:  "[...] I was in such a rush. It was ten days 
until the demo in front of the Engineering team. And I thought, “How am 
I going to do this and make it useful?” I had to lean on a very few 
concepts that were powerful. One was functions, [...] and closures were 
only latently there in the very first version, the other was *objects 
you could create ad hoc*."

-- 
Joao Rodrigues

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

#33872

bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote on 25 Aug 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE"
> part that confuzzles me: 

I am not your "bro", whatever that might mean,
a kind of magic potion perhaps[?], but
maybe a fellow traveller on the way to understanding more
about the reality.

No, irt is not inside in the DOM sense,
the DOM has no inside, it is just appended as achild.

Your children are not "inside" you [well hopefully, or only 9 months]
but they are appended to you family tree.

the DOM is a tree in that sense.

> you're calling something INSIDE div2 ,

The result in the HTML sense [not a tree, but a mark-up, with DIV end-tags]
is inside the parent DIV. 

The DOM needs no end-tags, you should have understood by now,
child-nodes just being appendages.

====================

> I find that very confusing

Maybe so, but did you rey to resolve your confusion by research and 
thought, before [again] have us do your work for you, and consequentially 
resulting in that you learn nothing in the real sense?

Most of us if not all have learned it the hard way, not only the result, but 
more important the "how to" of the process of understanding the DOM.

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

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

#33883

On 25/08/17 07:16, bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE" part that confuzzles me:

Yes, it's confusing if you don't understand this kind of markup.
Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't
understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append"
inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is
nothing to append to, it makes no sense touse the word "append".

But we're stuck with it, I'm afraid.

Moral of the story if that designers of languages need to read the spec
and understand the structure and syntax of the data they are planning to
deal with.

[snip]
> I find that very confusing - you're calling something INSIDE div2 ,
> instead of div2 being an *argument*!! I would have thought that if
> you want something inside "div", you tell it 1) what you want, and 2)
> inside what, i.e. BOTH of them would be arguments. ...Me not the OOP
> fanatic, remember....? THAT's the main reason for all the
> questions.....

That's part of the flawed syntax of Javascript, unfortunately.
Essentially, you are right:

1. position yourself (your memory pointer, location, whatever you call
it) INSIDE the element you want to insert into, in the desired location
with respect to any existing subelements that may exist;

2. perform an INSERT instruction

> Why did they do it this way (if, indeed, they have), out of
> curiosity?

You can see why the designer believed that this should be called
"append", because s/he never considered the case[s] where you might want
to insert an element inside another, at a location BEFORE any existing
subelements; or BETWEEN two existing subelements. S/he only considered
the case of adding to the end of the existing subelements, and ignored
the case where the containing element was actually empty.

Basically, if you don't understand this kind of nested markup, you
shouldn't be designing a language that deals with it.

In dealing with SGML/HTML/XML you need to think like a tree, not like a
chainsaw.

///Peter
-- 
XML FAQ: http://xml.silmaril.ie/

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

#33889

[Supersedes, in order not to be misunderstood]

Peter Flynn wrote:

> On 25/08/17 07:16, bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>> Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE"
>> part that confuzzles me:
> 
> Yes, it's confusing if you don't understand this kind of markup.
> Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't
> understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append"
> inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is
> nothing to append to, it makes no sense touse the word "append".
> 
> But we're stuck with it, I'm afraid.
> 
> Moral of the story if that designers of languages need to read the spec
> and understand the structure and syntax of the data they are planning to
> deal with.

Utter nonsense.

By calling the appendChild() method of an element object, one appends a 
child node to the list of child nodes of an element node, accessible with 
the “childNodes” property of that object, which in turn refers to an object 
that ought to implement (at least) the NodeList interface.
 
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/#interface-element> p.

> [snip]
>> I find that very confusing - you're calling something INSIDE div2 ,
>> instead of div2 being an *argument*!! I would have thought that if
>> you want something inside "div", you tell it 1) what you want, and 2)
>> inside what, i.e. BOTH of them would be arguments. ...Me not the OOP
>> fanatic, remember....? THAT's the main reason for all the
>> questions.....
> 
> That's part of the flawed syntax of Javascript, unfortunately.

Sadly, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.  I 
strongly suggest you be silent until this has changed, in order not to 
confuse people, especially those who are very confused already.

To begin with, there is no “Javascript” (see sig).  The interfaces we are 
discussing in this thread, and their implementations, are not even part of 
any ECMAScript implementation such as the language*s* that have “JavaScript” 
in their name.  The DOM is a *language-neutral* API; one can merely *access* 
its *implementations* by using an ECMAScript implementation, *among other 
programming languages*.

> [further misconceptions of a wannabe]

-- 
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]

#33894

On 27/08/17 02:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [Supersedes, in order not to be misunderstood]
> 
> Peter Flynn wrote:
> 
[snip]
>> Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't
>> understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append"
>> inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is
>> nothing to append to, it makes no sense to use the word "append".
[snip]
> 
> Utter nonsense.

I'm afraid not.

> By calling the appendChild() method of an element object, one appends a 
> child node to the list of child nodes of an element node, 

Right, no disagreement there. But what if there are no child nodes?

My point is that the choice of *name* for the method is misleading in
that circumstance. "Insert" is the normal name for this action (see the
menus of any XML editor).

> Sadly, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. 

Oh dear.

> I strongly suggest you be silent until this has changed, in order not to 
> confuse people, especially those who are very confused already.

You have my deepest sympathy.

> To begin with, there is no “Javascript” (see sig). 

*plonk*

P

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

#33895

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 12:40:27 PM UTC+2, Peter Flynn wrote:
> On 27/08/17 02:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>
> >> Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't
> >> understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append"
> >> inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is
> >> nothing to append to, it makes no sense to use the word "append".
> > 
> > Utter nonsense.
> 
> I'm afraid not.

It is nonsense squared: typical of the utterly clueless is to look at the
Collins instead of the language reference (this is true of all disciplines,
not just programming), but the idea that one should call insert instead of
add or append when a list is empty (in any language) wins a special Usenet
stupidity price (not easy at all nowadays).

Keep up the good work,

Julio

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

#33899

Peter Flynn wrote:

> On 27/08/17 02:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Peter Flynn wrote:
>>> Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't
>>> understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append"
>>> inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is
>>> nothing to append to, it makes no sense to use the word "append".
> [snip]
>> 
>> Utter nonsense.
> 
> I'm afraid not.

You are wrong.

>> By calling the appendChild() method of an element object, one appends a
>> child node to the list of child nodes of an element node,
> 
> Right, no disagreement there. But what if there are no child nodes?

Then the list of child nodes is *empty*, and the referred object’s `length` 
property has the value `0` (zero).

Borrowing from mathematics (cf. “empty set”), in (theoretical) computer 
science the concept of emptiness acquires another and even a different, 
counter-intuitive meaning.

For example, according to the theory of formal languages, every character of 
the text that you just read (including whitespace) has before and after it 
the “empty word” (commonly denoted ε [epsilon]), each of which produces an 
“empty string” (a string [of characters] of length zero, and indeed a String 
object with a `length` property value of `0`) as *match* when the ECMAScript 
regular expression (and in this case, also PCRE) `(?:)` is matched against 
the text as a String value:

  text.match(/(?:)/g)

For another example (as you should know if you knew what you claimed you 
know), the *content* model of certain elements of certain markup languages 
is *empty* (SGML/XML: `EMPTY`).  Colloquially this is a contradiction in 
terms, but it makes perfect sense in computer science because those 
languages *are* formal languages.

> My point is that the choice of *name* for the method is misleading in
> that circumstance.

No, it is not.  The node is *always* appended to, i.e. it is inserted *at 
the end* of, the list of child nodes.

In computer science, inserting an element at the end of an empty list means 
to modify that list so that afterwards it contains only the inserted 
element(s), in insertion order.

Moreover, if you append a node as child node to an element that already is a 
child node of the same element, it is moved towards the end of the list of 
child nodes (i.e. to the end of the target element).  If it is already the 
child node of another element, it is moved from that element to the end of 
the target element.  This is an easy and efficient way to rearrange child 
elements, for example for sorting a table [the recommendation is to sort the 
list as an Array first, then append each child element to the node list in 
array element order:

  [].slice.call(tBody.rows).sort((row1, row2) => …)
    .forEach((row) => tBody.appendChild(row));

].

> "Insert" is the normal name for this action (see the
> menus of any XML editor).

No, an insertion into a list can happen at *any* position of the list (cf. 
“insertion sort”).  Appending something is a *special* kind of insertion *at 
the end* (from Latin «appendēre» “to hang up”, “to suspend”, “to pay out”; 
cf. “appendix” etc.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Append>

That is why

  el.insertBefore(child, el.lastChild);

is equivalent to

  el.appendChild(child);

[If the element node has no child nodes, el.lastChild is `null`, and 
el.insertBefore() is specified and implemented to handle that, so this is 
safe in all cases.]

<https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/#dom-node-insertbefore>

> > Sadly, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. 
> 
> Oh dear.

Q.E.D.

>> To begin with, there is no “Javascript” (see sig).
> 
> *plonk*

LOL.  So you have not read my sig and are out of arguments already?

-- 
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]

#33900

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> That is why
> 
>   el.insertBefore(child, el.lastChild);
> 
> is equivalent to
> 
>   el.appendChild(child);

*Only* …
 
> [If the element node has no child nodes,

… I should say, because then

> el.lastChild is `null`, and el.insertBefore() is specified and implemented 
> to handle that, so this is safe in all cases.]

IOW,

  el.insertBefore(child, null);
 
is equivalent to

  el.appendChild(child);

> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/#dom-node-insertbefore>

-- 
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]

#33901

In article <7368313.T7Z3S40VBb@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Peter Flynn wrote:

>Q.E.D.
>
>>> To begin with, there is no “Javascript” (see sig).
>> 
>> *plonk*
>
>LOL.  So you have not read my sig and are out of arguments already?

No, PointHead, it's because he has realised that dealing with anyone
such as you who obsesses about matters (such as attribution lines or
the capitalisation of javascript) which are trivially unimportant is
not worth wasting time on.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

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

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

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

csiph-web