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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #17881 > unrolled thread

FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30)

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

Contents

  FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) "FAQ server" <javascript@dotinternet.be> - 2012-12-30 00:00 +0000
    Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-30 12:39 +1100
      Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-30 11:59 +0000
        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-31 11:19 +1100
          Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-31 11:08 +0000
            Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2013-01-01 10:16 +1100
              Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-01 01:32 +0100
                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-02 15:10 +0000
              Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-01 10:35 +0000
                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2013-01-01 23:58 +1100
                  Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-01 16:16 +0000
                    Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2013-01-02 11:35 +1100
                      Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-02 15:39 +0000
                        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2013-01-02 08:36 -0800
                          Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-02 20:54 +0100
                            Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-01-03 19:41 +0000
                              Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-04 12:38 +1100
                                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-04 13:59 +0100
                                  Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 14:17 +0100
                                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-01-04 08:42 -0800
                        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2013-01-03 12:49 +1100
                        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-01-03 19:39 +0000
                          Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-04 10:46 +0000
        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30) Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-31 20:05 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#17881 — FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2012-12-30)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ECMA-262 [ref 1]
is the international standard that current language implementations
(JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.

ECMA-262 [ref 2]
defines the language Syntax, Types, Keywords, Operators, and built-in
objects. The ECMAScript specification is the reference to determine the
expected behavior of a program. ECMAScript does not define any host
objects, such as `document`, `window`, or `ActiveXObject`.

ECMA-327 defines the Compact Profile of ECMAScript by
describing the features from ECMA 262 that may be omitted in some
resource-constrained environments.
<URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-327.htm>

The most widely supported edition of ECMA-262 is the 3rd edition (1999).
There is fair support for this edition in JScript 5.5+ (buggy) and good
support JavaScript 1.5.

The term "javascript" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.

References:
-----------

[1] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
[2] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm


The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/

-- 

The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted
by http://www.pair.com.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17884

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:00:02 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript "FAQ
server" <javascript@dotinternet.be>
<50df840a$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> wrote:

>| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript?
>| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| 
>| ECMA-262 [ref 1]
>| is the international standard that current language implementations
>| (JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.
>| 
>| ECMA-262 [ref 2]
>| defines the language Syntax, Types, Keywords, Operators, and built-in
>| objects. The ECMAScript specification is the reference to determine the
>| expected behavior of a program. ECMAScript does not define any host
>| objects, such as `document`, `window`, or `ActiveXObject`.
>| 
>| ECMA-327 defines the Compact Profile of ECMAScript by
>| describing the features from ECMA 262 that may be omitted in some
>| resource-constrained environments.
>| <URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-327.htm>
>| 
>| The most widely supported edition of ECMA-262 is the 3rd edition (1999).
>| There is fair support for this edition in JScript 5.5+ (buggy) and good
>| support JavaScript 1.5.
>| 
>| The term "javascript" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.
>| 
>| References:
>| -----------
>| 
>| [1] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>| [2] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>| 
>| 
>| The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
>| http://jibbering.com/faq/

Maybe a link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
for a more detailed explanation.

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

#17889

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 at 12:39:16, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
wrote:

  <snip>
>Maybe a link to:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>for a more detailed explanation.

Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17895

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:59:06 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
<$D5iY2DKyC4QFwcL@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:

>| On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 at 12:39:16, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| wrote:
>| 
>|   <snip>
>| >Maybe a link to:
>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>| 
>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(

What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.

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

#17896

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:59:06 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
><$D5iY2DKyC4QFwcL@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>
>>| On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 at 12:39:16, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>>| wrote:
>>|
>>|   <snip>
>>| >Maybe a link to:
>>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>>|
>>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
>>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>
>What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.

Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
readers to beware of misinformation ?

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17900

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:08:25 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
<4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:

>| On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| wrote:

>| >>| >Maybe a link to:
>| >>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>| >>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>| >>|
>| >>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
>| >>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>| >
>| >What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.
>| 
>| Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
>| readers to beware of misinformation ?

The way the you are carrying on you would think that using curly
brackets for every if, for, and while statement was a crime against
humanity.

Further more, you haven't criticised anything within the emcascript
link but a link within the topic. A link that a visitor may or may not
click on.

If you are so concerned about this gross, careless and reckless
misinformation within Wikipedia then why don't you submit a correction
to the site?

Side note: I teach the correct methods for using curly brackets but if
I see that the students are getting confused about where and when to
include/omit the brackets I then tell them to place curly brackets
around everything. Does it 'hurt the code' - no. Does it mean they are
terrible programmers - no. 

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

#17904

Jeff North wrote:

> John G Harris […] wrote:

Please do not post attribution novels, and do use common, unambiguous quote 
prefixes.  “|” is for third-party quotes only.
 
> Side note: I teach the correct methods for using curly brackets
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What are those, IYHO?

> but if I see that the students are getting confused about where and when
> to include/omit the brackets I then tell them to place curly brackets
> around everything.

Which is recommended for several C-family languages, and can be enforced by 
good editors (for example, Eclipse JSDT has a Save Action for that).

> Does it 'hurt the code' - no.

ACK.  It certainly makes code easier to read and maintain: you can see 
clearly, even with borken indentation, which lines belong to the control 
statement, and it is easier to add more statements related to that 
statement.

And if you compact tested production code for serving it via HTTP, it does 
not matter if there is a one more newline in the original code.  Data 
storage has become that inexpensive that readability and maintainability is 
more important than size there.

> Does it mean they are terrible programmers - no.

IMHO they will even become better programmers because they will have learned 
the importance of a consistent code style.  I am still somewhat slow to use 
Block statements with simple ”if” statements (especially in examples); but 
the good argument I read in this newsgroup stuck, and I have enabled the 
aforementioned Save Action for most of my ES/JS projects since then (having 
used Visual Studio 2010 recently, I wished Eclipse [JSDT] could also 
automatically correct the indentation of the preceding code when I write a 
closing brace).


PointedEars
-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

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

#17912

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 01:32:55, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>Jeff North wrote:

WRONG! You must NOT put anything from the headers in your attribution,
says Herr Nimmich.

  <snip>

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17907

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 10:16:43, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:08:25 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
><4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>
>>| On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>>| wrote:
>
>>| >>| >Maybe a link to:
>>| >>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>>| >>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>>| >>|
>>| >>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
>>| >>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>>| >
>>| >What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.
>>|
>>| Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
>>| readers to beware of misinformation ?
>
>The way the you are carrying on you would think that using curly
>brackets for every if, for, and while statement was a crime against
>humanity.

So you do think it's all right for the FAQ to point towards
misinformation without warning, as long as the misinformation is "not a
crime".


  <snip>
>Side note: I teach the correct methods for using curly brackets but if
>I see that the students are getting confused about where and when to
>include/omit the brackets I then tell them to place curly brackets
>around everything. Does it 'hurt the code' - no. Does it mean they are
>terrible programmers - no.

If they don't know what a statement is then they are truly terrible
programmers - yes.

Rote learning is not a way to grow competent programmers.

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17908

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:35:52 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
<STg3aiCIwr4QFwIw@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:

>| On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 10:16:43, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| wrote:
>| >On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:08:25 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>| >Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>| ><4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>| >
>| >>| On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| >>| wrote:
>| >
>| >>| >>| >Maybe a link to:
>| >>| >>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>| >>| >>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>| >>| >>|
>| >>| >>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners that every
>| >>| >>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>| >>| >
>| >>| >What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.
>| >>|
>| >>| Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
>| >>| readers to beware of misinformation ?
>| >
>| >The way the you are carrying on you would think that using curly
>| >brackets for every if, for, and while statement was a crime against
>| >humanity.
>| 
>| So you do think it's all right for the FAQ to point towards
>| misinformation without warning, as long as the misinformation is "not a
>| crime".

Tell me where the misinformation is on the ECMAScript page.

[snip]

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

#17909

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 23:58:31, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:35:52 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
><STg3aiCIwr4QFwIw@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>
>>| On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 10:16:43, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>>| wrote:
>>| >On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:08:25 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>>| >Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>>| ><4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>>| >
>>| >>| On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>>| >>| wrote:
>>| >
>>| >>| >>| >Maybe a link to:
>>| >>| >>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>>| >>| >>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>>| >>| >>|
>>| >>| >>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners
>>| >>| >>|that every
>>| >>| >>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>>| >>| >
>>| >>| >What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.
>>| >>|
>>| >>| Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
>>| >>| readers to beware of misinformation ?
>>| >
>>| >The way the you are carrying on you would think that using curly
>>| >brackets for every if, for, and while statement was a crime against
>>| >humanity.
>>|
>>| So you do think it's all right for the FAQ to point towards
>>| misinformation without warning, as long as the misinformation is "not a
>>| crime".
>
>Tell me where the misinformation is on the ECMAScript page.

Just follow the link in the Syntax section, of course.


  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17911

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:16:06 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
<KAzIkqAGvw4QFwaz@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:

>| On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 23:58:31, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| wrote:
>| >On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:35:52 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>| >Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>| ><STg3aiCIwr4QFwIw@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>| >
>| >>| On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 10:16:43, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| >>| wrote:
>| >>| >On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:08:25 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>| >>| >Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>| >>| ><4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>| >>| >
>| >>| >>| On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 at 11:19:22, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>| >>| >>| wrote:
>| >>| >
>| >>| >>| >>| >Maybe a link to:
>| >>| >>| >>| >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
>| >>| >>| >>| >for a more detailed explanation.
>| >>| >>| >>|
>| >>| >>| >>| Which has a link to a Wikipedia article that tells beginners
>| >>| >>| >>|that every
>| >>| >>| >>| if, for, and while statement contains curly brackets :-(
>| >>| >>| >
>| >>| >>| >What a pathetic argument you are putting forward.
>| >>| >>|
>| >>| >>| Are you saying that the FAQ should point to a document without telling
>| >>| >>| readers to beware of misinformation ?
>| >>| >
>| >>| >The way the you are carrying on you would think that using curly
>| >>| >brackets for every if, for, and while statement was a crime against
>| >>| >humanity.
>| >>|
>| >>| So you do think it's all right for the FAQ to point towards
>| >>| misinformation without warning, as long as the misinformation is "not a
>| >>| crime".
>| >
>| >Tell me where the misinformation is on the ECMAScript page.
>| 
>| Just follow the link in the Syntax section, of course.

I repeat, you haven't criticised anything within the emcascript
link but a link within the topic. A link that a visitor may or may not
click on.

If you are so concerned about this gross, careless and reckless
misinformation within Wikipedia then why don't you submit a correction
to the site?

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

#17913

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 at 11:35:32, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North 
wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:16:06 +0000, in comp.lang.javascript John G
>Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
><KAzIkqAGvw4QFwaz@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> wrote:
>
>>| On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 at 23:58:31, in comp.lang.javascript, Jeff North
>>| wrote:

   <snip>
>>| >Tell me where the misinformation is on the ECMAScript page.
>>|
>>| Just follow the link in the Syntax section, of course.
>
>I repeat, you haven't criticised anything within the emcascript
>link but a link within the topic. A link that a visitor may or may not
>click on.
>
>If you are so concerned about this gross, careless and reckless
>misinformation within Wikipedia then why don't you submit a correction
>to the site?

Are you naturally dense, or are you just practising to achieve 
denseness?

I've been talking all along about your proposed change to the FAQ, and 
about the general principle of whether the FAQ readers should be told to 
be cautious about some of the documents it points to.

For some reason you seem unwilling to talk about this.

   John
-- 
John Harris

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

#17914

On 1/2/2013 7:39 AM, John G Harris wrote:
...
> I've been talking all along about your proposed change to the FAQ, and
> about the general principle of whether the FAQ readers should be told to
> be cautious about some of the documents it points to.
...

The documents it points to are on the Internet, so of course the readers
should be cautious about them :)

Even if you reviewed all external link content and only pointed to
material you agreed with today, the targets of the external links could
change tomorrow. Marking any individual links with indications of
unreliability could create an inappropriate expectation of reliability
for other links.

Some web sites associate a we-are-not-responsible disclaimer with all
their associated links. I'm not sure whether the FAQ needs to go that
far, but that is what you should do if you are worried about the risk of
readers attaching too much trust to external links.

Patricia

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

#17915

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> On 1/2/2013 7:39 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>> I've been talking all along about your proposed change to the FAQ, and
>> about the general principle of whether the FAQ readers should be told to
>> be cautious about some of the documents it points to.
> 
> The documents it points to are on the Internet, so of course the readers
> should be cautious about them :)
> 
> Even if you reviewed all external link content and only pointed to
> material you agreed with today, the targets of the external links could
> change tomorrow. Marking any individual links with indications of
> unreliability could create an inappropriate expectation of reliability
> for other links.
> 
> Some web sites associate a we-are-not-responsible disclaimer with all
> their associated links. I'm not sure whether the FAQ needs to go that
> far, but that is what you should do if you are worried about the risk of
> readers attaching too much trust to external links.

I think that is essentially a good idea.  A legal disclaimer would probably 
not be needed (the FAQ does not give any guarantees anyway), but a general 
note along the lines that, although care had been taken to select the links 
once, the referred content cannot be checked regularly for correctness by 
the editor(s) (unless someone volunteers for that part).

This could be accompanied by a link to the existing FAQ section where it 
says how you can contribute to the FAQ, pointing out that you can suggest 
links to apparently inappropriate content for review by the editor(s) and, 
by extension, the subscribers of the newsgroup.


PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1]
___________
[1] <http://PointedEars.de/faq/>
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

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

#17930

In comp.lang.javascript message <1426370.9LCISzPTdA@PointedEars.de>,
Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:54:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
posted:

>
>PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1]

You have no more right to make such a claim than you have to rule
Poland.  Especially using the definite article.

-- 
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK.  ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk  Turnpike v6.05  MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
     Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
    Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

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

#17932

On 4/01/2013 6:41 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <1426370.9LCISzPTdA@PointedEars.de>,
> Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:54:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
> posted:
>
>>
>> PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1]
>
> You have no more right to make such a claim than you have to rule
> Poland.  Especially using the definite article.

PE is the ruler of Poland! Congratulations.

Andrew Poulos

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

#17940

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> On 4/01/2013 6:41 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted:
>>> PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1]
>> You have no more right to make such a claim than you have to rule
>> Poland.

I have the right to claim that I did what I did, created what I created 
(based on another, unmaintained resource), and edited what I edited; that I 
took action, while other people – who will of course forever remain 
unknown – had nothing better to do than leaning back and complaining about 
the state of things.

>> Especially using the definite article.
 
Which is not (yet?) part of the title, if you cared to notice.

> PE is the ruler of Poland! Congratulations.

Thank you, but, regretfully, I must decline because I do not have time for 
that; I have a FAQ to edit, among other things.


Regards,

PointedEars
-- 
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)

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

#17941

W dniu 2013-01-04 13:59, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn pisze:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
[...]
>> PE is the ruler of Poland! Congratulations.
>
> Thank you, but, regretfully, I must decline because I do not have time for
> that; I have a FAQ to edit, among other things.

Come on! You can do it ;-)

-- 
Cezary Tomczyk
http://www.ctomczyk.pl/

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

#17949

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:38:19 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/01/2013 6:41 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In comp.lang.javascript message <1426370.9LCISzPTdA@PointedEars.de>,
>> Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:54:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
>> posted:
>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1]
>>
>> You have no more right to make such a claim than you have to rule
>> Poland.  Especially using the definite article.
>
>PE is the ruler of Poland! Congratulations.

     That is a nasty Polish joke.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web