setTimeout function problem

[SAM]

Le 12/1/08 12:41 AM, David Mark a écrit :

How about "not at all?" Is that clearer?

Sorry, not.

Explain.

What makes you saying that?

I think too they are not,
but only because they existed without and before the concept of DOM.
(I believe ?!)

 

[David Mark]

Le 12/1/08 12:41 AM, David Mark a écrit :



Sorry, not.

Explain.

What makes you saying that?

The window object is not part of the DOM and neither are its methods.

[snip]

 

[Laurent vilday]

David Mark :

SAM :

How about "not at all?" Is that clearer?

Well in fact, not really, Thomas is saying "white" without giving a clue
why it is "white", and you on the other hand are saying it is "black"
but also without giving any clue why.

Add to this the language wall in this discussion between you and
Stéphane (SAM, a not native english speaker), and you obtain just
nothing usefull from the discussion.

You are a great source of informations and thinking, but usually you are
not giving enough simple examples and/or sources to explain your valid
points, which result in babbling with someone not understanding you. Not
your fault, not SAM's one, just language barrier getting proportionnally
higher with the shortness of answers.

I mean, in general in the group not in this thread especially, almost
all your short sentences are not a great help for people who are not
seeing the point you are exposing, especially when they are not fluent
in english.

No flames and no arguing with you here, this is not a bigger dick
content, just my 2 cents before you and SAM gets in a ugly fight, which
is not needed neither intended, I know.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark :



Well in fact, not really, Thomas is saying "white" without giving a clue
why it is "white", and you on the other hand are saying it is "black"
but also without giving any clue why.

This is a silly exchange over semantics. Just ignore it. Anyone with
sense can see that the window object has nothing to do with the
Document Object Model. And reportedly there are UA's that implement
such methods as "setTimeout", "setInterval", etc. as global
properties, without any window object or DOM.

Add to this the language wall in this discussion between you and
Stéphane (SAM, a not native english speaker), and you obtain just
nothing usefull from the discussion.

Sorry, but I don't speak French and apparently "SAM" has trouble with
English.

You are a great source of informations and thinking

Thank you.

[snip]

 

[SAM]

Le 12/1/08 1:53 AM, David Mark a écrit :

The window object is not part of the DOM and neither are its methods.

Ha! Finally, you can be expressive.

 

[SAM]

Le 12/1/08 2:14 AM, David Mark a écrit :

Sorry, but I don't speak French and apparently "SAM" has trouble with
English.

Yes.
I didn't practice orally the poor english learned at school since very
long time ago.
To frequent NG to practice and progress in English is not a real help
with all those foreigns that put words (of idea of what could be this
words) one after one.

I think that speaking of JS code is always more clear with examples.
Saying "its wrong" even if justify is not enough without the why.
(and not only in English).

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Not hardly.

You are not making sense. Anyhow, it is a mistake to restrict the Document
Object Model to the `document' reference and the properties "below" it.


PointedEars

 

[David Mark]

Le 12/1/08 2:14 AM, David Mark a écrit :



Yes.
I didn't practice orally the poor english learned at school since very
long time ago.
To frequent NG to practice and progress in English is not a real help
with all those foreigns that put words (of idea of what could be this
words) one after one.

I think that speaking of JS code is always more clear with examples.
Saying "its wrong" even if justify is not enough without the why.
(and not only in English).

I told you why it was wrong and gave you a one-line patch in the first
reply.

 

[David Mark]

I told you why it was wrong and gave you a one-line patch in the first
reply.

This refers to the other ongoing thread about the memory leak. Not
sure what SAM's complaint is here.

 

[SAM]

Le 12/1/08 2:59 AM, David Mark a écrit :
Perhaps, here I do not talk of my alone own case ?
Perhaps does I only express my sentiment ?

I told you why it was wrong and gave you a one-line patch in the first
reply.

You speak about post in the other thread about traversing the DOM on
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:30:29 -0800 (PST)
?

You're right. Accept that I beg your pardon.
You did give me some code and a link about closures.
(and that began our misunderstanding, me with my CC, you with dGBI that
I din'd want to ear, and do not more want to, as it was not my subject).

 

[David Mark]

Which user agents would that be?

I don't know. I refer to a post here by Jim Ley from five or six
years ago. Delve into the archives if you are interested.

[snip[

 

[SAM]

Le 12/1/08 3:09 AM, David Mark a écrit :

This refers to the other ongoing thread about the memory leak. Not
sure what SAM's complaint is here.

Only a general complaint.
(sometimes I do not speak only for me)

My name is Stephan Moriaux.

 

[David Mark]

Le 12/1/08 2:59 AM, David Mark a écrit :


Perhaps, here I do not talk of my alone own case ?
Perhaps does I only express my sentiment ?


You speak about post in the other thread about traversing the DOM on
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Yes.

?

You're right. Accept that I beg your pardon.
You did give me some code and a link about closures.
Yes.

(and that began our misunderstanding, me with my CC, you with dGBI that
I din'd want to ear, and do not more want to, as it was not my subject).

Yes. And I know it was just part of some test suite that you and the
"philosopher" were working on, but the logic seemed silly even for a
test and the casual reader could mistake it for an example.

[snip]

 

[David Mark]

I don't know.  I refer to a post here by Jim Ley from five or six
years ago.  Delve into the archives if you are interested.

Thanks. I think I found the thread [0] you were referring to. To
summarize, Jim Ley pointed out [1] two UAs that didn't use |window| as
the global object (the old Adobe and Corel SVG viewer plugins), and in
another message [2] wrote that they did in fact implement setTimeout and
setInterval as properties of the global object.

  [0]http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ydby7
  [1]http://preview.tinyurl.com/6728gx
  [2]http://preview.tinyurl.com/5swcsu

If we wanted to write scripts that worked in UAs like these as well as
browsers, there's actually a case to be made for either always using
<global>.setTimeout instead of window.setTimeout, or just writing
|setTimeout| and letting the UA use the scope chain to find the global
object, or using a wrapper function (after checking if a setTimeout
methods is available in each case). window.setTimeout would seem to be
the least compatible option.

var GLOBAL = this.window || this;

Now use GLOBAL instead of window and certainly detect methods before
calling them.

[snip]

 

[Doug Gunnoe]

I leave it to you to compute the percentage of false or
misleading information,

Well I just assumed since you were making the call that it was a bad
source that you had already done something similar to this or you had
some credible information that compared the error rate in this
documentation to the error rate in other documentation.

Or were you just talking out of your ass based on anecdotal
observations?

You may invent terminology as you wish, but don't expect it to be
universally understood.

It's common terminology.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prototype

The sad thing about it is that you are in no position to make such an
assessment. Ignorance must be bliss.

Really? I guess I know my position a hell of a lot better than some
random person who doesn't know me at all. Exactly what am I in 'peril'
of, Thomas?

By the way, I love how you never answer the OP's question. You just
start babbling nonsense.

push vs. pull? wtf? Is this 1999?