The "undefined" value

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by matty, Nov 19, 2005.

  1. matty

    matty Guest

    Hi,

    I recently got very confused (well that's my life) about the
    "undefined" value. I looked in the FAQ and didn't see anything about
    it. On http://www.webreference.com/programming/javascript/gr/column9/
    they say:

    <snip>
    The undefined property
    A relatively recent addition to JavaScript is the undefined property.
    It's useful when you want to test whether a variable has been
    initialized or not.

    var a;

    if ( a == undefined ) a = "some value";
    </snip>

    Is this really valid? Shouldn't it be "if (typeof a == 'undefined') ?

    Would an explanation on what "undefined" is and how to check for it be
    a good entry for the FAQ?

    Thanks,

    Matty.
     
    matty, Nov 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In ECMAScript 3rd specs the word 'undefinde' occurs on
    4.2 Language Overview
    <quote>
    Properties are containers that hold
    other objects, primitive values, or methods. A primitive value is a
    member of one of the following built-in
    types: Undefined, Null, Boolean, Number, and String; an object is a
    member of the remaining built-in
    type Object; and a method is a function associated with an object via a
    property.
    </quote>

    In 4.3.9 Undefined Value we can read:
    <quote>
    The undefined value is a primitive value used when a variable has not
    been assigned a value.
    </quote>
    and then in 4.3.10 Undefined Type we see:
    <quote>
    The type Undefined has exactly one value, called undefined.
    </quote>

    , where word 'undefined' is bolded... so it is a part of spec... thus
    yes: 'undefinded' is a value
    (we can eg. read also in 10.1.3 Variable Instantiation that
    <quote>
    On entering an execution context, the
    properties are bound to the variable object in the following
    order:(...)
    If
    the caller supplies fewer parameter values than there are formal
    parameters, the extra formal
    parameters have value undefined. If two or more formal parameters share
    the same name, hence the
    same property, the corresponding property is given the value that was
    supplied for the last parameter
    with this name. If the value of this last parameter was not supplied by
    the caller, the value of the
    corresponding property is undefined.
    </quote>

    This 'undefined' is a value from JavaScript 1.3 (and we remember that
    JavaScript 1.3 was comformant to ECMAScript 1rd release).
    So primitive values can be used directly, this includes:
    - undefined
    - null
    - any string
    - any number (which is double-precision 64-bit format IEEE 754);
    - true
    - false (which are booleans);
    (of course there are also literals, and in literals we have Integer
    Literals and so on).

    typeof can be used, but you must remember the 'bugs' that it has:
    typeof(null) == "object"
    typeof(new Array) == "object"
    typeof(undefinded) == "undefinded"
    var myVar;
    typeof(myVar) == "undefined"
    var myVar1 = 1;
    typeof(myVar1) == "number"
    typeof("mystr") == "string" or typeof "mystr" == "string"
    typeof true = "true"
    typeof false = "false"

    and so on...
    Best regards.
     
    Luke Matuszewski, Nov 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. matty wrote:

    > <snip>
    > The undefined property
    > A relatively recent addition to JavaScript is the undefined property.
    > It's useful when you want to test whether a variable has been
    > initialized or not.
    >
    > var a;
    >
    > if ( a == undefined ) a = "some value";


    That statement is false, even for ridiculous high values for time passed
    from the moment till now for still being "recent". Most notably, one
    can easily assign the `undefined' value (the sole value of the built-in
    Undefined type), or some other false-values for that matter, to a variable
    and property and the conditional expression would still evaluate to `true'.

    var a;

    // either will apply here
    a = void 0; // applies because the `void' operator evaluates to the
    // `undefined' value the `undefined' property refers to
    a = this.bla; // provided this.bla was not defined
    a = null; // applies due to implicit type conversion

    // either will not apply here
    a = false;
    a = 0;
    a = NaN;

    if (a == undefined) // provided the `undefined' property is supported
    {
    alert("undefined?");
    }
    else
    {
    alert("defined?");
    }

    if (b == undefined) // breaks, since b was not declared and not defined
    {
    // ...
    }

    var b; // applies to the below condition

    if (typeof b == "undefined") // almost never breaks if b was declared
    or defined, see below
    {
    alert("undefined?")
    }

    > </snip>
    >
    > Is this really valid?


    Depends on what you call "valid". It is syntactically correct ECMAScript
    compliant code. It should not error in JavaScript 1.3+ (NN 4.06+ [1998])
    and JScript 5.5+ (IE/Win 5.5+ [?]), provided that `a' was either declared
    or defined before. The condition in the sentence before clearly indicates
    that the approach cannot serve as suitable test of what it is explained
    above to be.

    > Shouldn't it be "if (typeof a == 'undefined') ?


    That is the approach used to ensure the script does not break in most
    script engines and, in contrast to the first approach, does not break
    with non-instantiated local properties (such as undeclared and not defined
    variables). This (the `typeof' operator) is supported since ECMAScript 1,
    JavaScript 1.1 (NN3+ [Aug. 1996]) and JScript 1.0 (IE/Win 3.0+ [?]).
    However, as I wrote before, `undefined' is _not_ "not defined".
    It is a special value.

    If I should put it bluntly: you should delete all references to that
    Web site you quoted from. The information there is not only outdated,
    it is utterly wrong.

    > Would an explanation on what "undefined" is and how to check for
    > it be a good entry for the FAQ?


    I do not think so as I do not perceive it as a frequently asked
    question here and anyone who can read and understand the references
    and specifications pointed to in the FAQ knows the (low) level of
    support for it compared to `typeof ... == "undefined"'.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 19, 2005
    #3
  4. matty

    matty Guest

    Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    > typeof can be used, but you must remember the 'bugs' that it has:
    > typeof(null) == "object"
    > typeof(new Array) == "object"
    > typeof(undefinded) == "undefinded"
    > var myVar;
    > typeof(myVar) == "undefined"
    > var myVar1 = 1;
    > typeof(myVar1) == "number"
    > typeof("mystr") == "string" or typeof "mystr" == "string"
    > typeof true = "true"
    > typeof false = "false"
    >


    Thank you. But what bugs?
    Matty.
     
    matty, Nov 19, 2005
    #4
  5. matty wrote:
    > Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    > > typeof can be used, but you must remember the 'bugs' that it has:
    > > typeof(null) == "object"
    > > typeof(new Array) == "object"
    > > typeof(undefinded) == "undefinded"
    > > var myVar;
    > > typeof(myVar) == "undefined"
    > > var myVar1 = 1;
    > > typeof(myVar1) == "number"
    > > typeof("mystr") == "string" or typeof "mystr" == "string"
    > > typeof true = "true"
    > > typeof false = "false"
    > >

    >
    > Thank you. But what bugs?
    > Matty.

    Main bug was that:
    typeof(null) == "object"
    , since null is primitive value and not an object. The same for Array
    so:
    typeof(new Array) == "object"
    which is returned as "object", but Array is special kind of it
    (especially it has a lenght property which specifies numer of its
    elements).
     
    Luke Matuszewski, Nov 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Luke Matuszewski wrote:

    > In ECMAScript 3rd specs the word 'undefinde' occurs on


    He was talking support for the the `undefined' property
    which represents the internal `undefined' value.

    > This 'undefined' is a value from JavaScript 1.3


    True.

    > (and we remember that JavaScript 1.3 was comformant to ECMAScript 1rd
    > release).


    False.

    ,-<URL:http://research.nihonsoft.org/javascript/ClientGuideJS13/intro.html#1013678>
    |
    | JavaScript 1.1 ECMA-262 is based on JavaScript 1.1.

    That is a completely different thing, as tests have shown.

    > typeof can be used, but you must remember the 'bugs' that it has:
    > typeof(null) == "object"


    `null' is the sole value of the `Null' type, a type for object
    references. It "is a primitive value that represents the null,
    empty, or non-existent reference." (ECMAScript 3 Final, 4.3.11)
    It is perfectly understandable that "object" is yielded.

    `typeof' is not a function but an operator. Given whitespace
    (even newline) between operator and operand, no parentheses are
    necessary.

    > typeof(new Array) == "object"


    Array objects are objects, as are other core objects. No surprise here.

    > typeof(undefinded) == "undefinded"


    There is no built-in `undefinded' property or variable and no conforming
    ECMAScript implementation that evaluates a TypeofExpression to
    "undefinded" (except for host objects). You probably meant

    typeof undefined == "undefined"

    Since that is the specified behavior, there is no bug whatsoever.

    > var myVar;
    > typeof(myVar) == "undefined"


    Declared, but not initialized variables are assigned the `undefined' value.
    No surprise here

    > var myVar1 = 1;
    > typeof(myVar1) == "number"


    or here

    > typeof("mystr") == "string" or typeof "mystr" == "string"


    or here.

    > typeof true = "true"
    > typeof false = "false"


    Provided that you did not mean an AssignmentExpression, there is no
    ECMAScript compliant implementation that evaluates either left-hand
    side expression to "true" or "false". A conforming implementation
    evaluates both of them to "boolean". I wonder what implementation
    you have tested with; probably none.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Luke Matuszewski wrote:

    > Main bug was that:
    > typeof(null) == "object"
    > , since null is primitive value and not an object.


    That is not a bug.

    > The same for Array
    > so:
    > typeof(new Array) == "object"
    > which is returned as "object", but Array is special kind of it
    > (especially it has a lenght property which specifies numer of its
    > elements).


    That Array objects are considered objects because they are ("a
    special kind of") object is a bug? You are not making any sense.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 19, 2005
    #7
  8. matty

    matty Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > var a;
    >
    > // either will apply here
    > a = void 0; // applies because the `void' operator evaluates to the
    > // `undefined' value the `undefined' property refers to
    > a = this.bla; // provided this.bla was not defined
    > a = null; // applies due to implicit type conversion
    >
    > // either will not apply here
    > a = false;
    > a = 0;
    > a = NaN;
    >
    > if (a == undefined) // provided the `undefined' property is supported
    > {
    > alert("undefined?");
    > }
    > else
    > {
    > alert("defined?");
    > }
    >
    > if (b == undefined) // breaks, since b was not declared and not defined
    > {
    > // ...
    > }
    >
    > var b; // applies to the below condition
    >
    > if (typeof b == "undefined") // almost never breaks if b was declared
    > or defined, see below
    > {
    > alert("undefined?")
    > }
    >


    Thank you that was a very good explanation. My confusion was not
    realizing that there is an undefined value AND an "undefined" type, as
    Luke mentionned, and that an undeclared variable is not undefined, it
    simply doesn't exist.

    >
    > If I should put it bluntly:

    LOL do you really have to ask.

    you should delete all references to that
    > Web site you quoted from. The information there is not only outdated,
    > it is utterly wrong.

    I cannot possibly delete references from all websites that contain
    wrong information. On the contrary I think it is beneficial to others
    to keep the reference so that they know they cannot trust it as you
    properly demonstrated.

    >
    > > Would an explanation on what "undefined" is and how to check for
    > > it be a good entry for the FAQ?

    >
    > I do not think so as I do not perceive it as a frequently asked
    > question here and anyone who can read and understand the references
    > and specifications pointed to in the FAQ knows the (low) level of
    > support for it compared to `typeof ... == "undefined"'.
    >


    Sigh. [psf 10.1]

    Why did I even ask LOL. Your perception is yours. You may think that my
    original question is extremely basic, and that I shouldn't even have
    posted it because I should know better. I _personally_ think that the
    confusion is legitimate and it doesn't hurt going in detail like you
    did to make things clearer for everyone. There are topics in the FAQ
    that I _personally_ perceive as not "frequently asked" (e.g. 4.11) and
    some others like 4.19 that I _personally_ believe everyone should know,
    had they "read and understood the references and the specifications".
    It was just a suggestion, and given the excellent examples given in the
    replies, I _personally_ believed they would be a good reference in the
    FAQ, since I couldn't find them anywhere else and the only thing I
    found was <quote>utterly wrong</quote> (which I now agree with).

    Matty
     
    matty, Nov 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >
    > > (and we remember that JavaScript 1.3 was comformant to ECMAScript 1rd
    > > release).

    >
    > False.
    >
    > ,-<URL:http://research.nihonsoft.org/javascript/ClientGuideJS13/intro.html#1013678>
    > |
    > | JavaScript 1.1 ECMA-262 is based on JavaScript 1.1.
    >
    > That is a completely different thing, as tests have shown.

    Generally you are right, but i think i mentioned JavaScript 1.3 because
    JavaScript 1.2 had a terrible bug in operators == and != which
    performed strict equality/inequality. JavaScript 1.3 defined new
    operators for such strict equality === and !==.
    In JavaScript 1.1 == and != operators wasn't performing this strictness
    thing like in JavaScript 1.2.

    > > typeof can be used, but you must remember the 'bugs' that it has:
    > > typeof(null) == "object"

    >
    > `null' is the sole value of the `Null' type, a type for object
    > references. It "is a primitive value that represents the null,
    > empty, or non-existent reference." (ECMAScript 3 Final, 4.3.11)
    > It is perfectly understandable that "object" is yielded.

    I think this is a matter of deduction... from my point of view all
    primitive values are NOT objects so they should evaluate by typeof to
    propert strings such as
    var a, b = null;
    if(typeof b == "null") {
    /* */
    }

    > `typeof' is not a function but an operator.


    Yes, you are correct.

    >
    > > typeof true = "true"
    > > typeof false = "false"

    >
    > Provided that you did not mean an AssignmentExpression,


    Yes, you are right - i forgot/omitted the remaining =

    > ECMAScript compliant implementation that evaluates either left-hand
    > side expression to "true" or "false". A conforming implementation
    > evaluates both of them to "boolean". I wonder what implementation
    > you have tested with; probably none.


    And again you are right here.

    Thanks and best regards.
    Luke.
     
    Luke Matuszewski, Nov 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Luke Matuszewski wrote:

    > [...] i mentioned JavaScript 1.3 because JavaScript 1.2 had a terrible bug
    > in operators == and != which performed strict equality/inequality.
    > JavaScript 1.3 defined new operators for such strict equality === and !==.
    > In JavaScript 1.1 == and != operators wasn't performing this strictness
    > thing like in JavaScript 1.2.


    Unfortunately I cannot install a JavaScript 1.2-only UA (NN 3) here
    to check this.

    > [snipped because of ACK]



    Please include an empty line between quote and new text, prose and source
    code, and in your new text now and then, to ease reading. And please do
    not remove attributions for still _quoted_ text completely.


    Regards,
    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 19, 2005
    #10
  11. matty

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    > Generally you are right, but i think i mentioned JavaScript 1.3
    > because JavaScript 1.2 had a terrible bug in operators == and != which
    > performed strict equality/inequality.


    I don't remember the facts exactly and I don't have time to look it up right
    now...

    But I thought that there was some confusion about this functionality when
    1.2 was coming out. Originally, they decided that == and != should behave
    like === and !==. Netscape 4 was released during this time, and since it
    wasn't finalized, they decided to only implement this functionality inside
    of <script language="Javascript1.2"> tags. After the release, the decision
    was reversed so that == and != did _not_ function like the current === and
    !==, so the only situation affected was NN4 inside of <script
    language="Javascript1.2"> tags.

    I may remember wrong, though. Please correct me if so ;)

    --
    Matt Kruse
    http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
    http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
     
    Matt Kruse, Nov 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Luke Matuszewski wrote:

    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> > (and we remember that JavaScript 1.3 was comformant to ECMAScript 1rd

    ^^^
    >> > release).

    >>
    >> False.
    >>
    >> ,-<URL:http://research.nihonsoft.org/javascript/ClientGuideJS13/intro.html#1013678>
    >> |
    >> | JavaScript 1.1 ECMA-262 is based on JavaScript 1.1.

    ^^^
    >> That is a completely different thing, as tests have shown.

    > Generally you are right, [...]


    I'm sorry, somehow I read "1.3" where there was "1.1" and vice-versa.

    ,-<URL:http://research.nihonsoft.org/javascript/ClientGuideJS13/intro.html#1013678>
    |
    | JavaScript 1.3 | JavaScript 1.3 is fully compatible with ECMA-262. [...]

    I'd say that confirms your statement. My bad.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Matt Kruse napisal(a):
    > After the release, the decision
    > was reversed so that == and != did _not_ function like the current === and
    > !==, so the only situation affected was NN4 inside of <script
    > language="Javascript1.2"> tags.
    >
    > I may remember wrong, though. Please correct me if so ;)


    You are right. It is even mentioned on page with Rhino implementation.
    Here is a link:
    http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/overview.html - go to the "JavaScript
    Language Versions" paragraph.

    Best regards.
    Luke.
     
    Luke Matuszewski, Nov 20, 2005
    #13
  14. matty

    matty Guest

    Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    > Matt Kruse napisal(a):
    > > After the release, the decision
    > > was reversed so that == and != did _not_ function like the current === and
    > > !==, so the only situation affected was NN4 inside of <script
    > > language="Javascript1.2"> tags.
    > >
    > > I may remember wrong, though. Please correct me if so ;)

    >
    > You are right. It is even mentioned on page with Rhino implementation.
    > Here is a link:
    > http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/overview.html - go to the "JavaScript
    > Language Versions" paragraph.
    >
    > Best regards.
    > Luke.


    Ha! I couldn't remember where I saw an official (official is to be
    debated, I know) website tell me that I had to use
    "language='Javascript1.2" and that's where it was !

    So what's the deal? From what I understand we should use
    "type=text/javascript" and not the "language=...". Is there a clear
    explanation on an official website (i.e. not related to a particular
    product) that tells me what to do with this ?

    Matty
     
    matty, Nov 20, 2005
    #14
  15. matty wrote:

    > Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    >> http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/overview.html - go to the "JavaScript
    >> Language Versions" paragraph.
    >> [...]

    >
    > Ha! I couldn't remember where I saw an official (official
    > is to be debated, I know) website tell me that I had to use
    > "language='Javascript1.2"


    The document referred to does not tell you this.

    > and that's where it was !
    >
    > So what's the deal? From what I understand we should use
    > "type=text/javascript" and not the "language=...". Is there a clear
    > explanation on an official website (i.e. not related to a particular
    > product) that tells me what to do with this ?


    They already are (implicitly) telling you _not_ to use it.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 20, 2005
    #15
  16. matty

    matty Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > matty wrote:
    >
    > > Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    > >> http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/overview.html - go to the "JavaScript
    > >> Language Versions" paragraph.
    > >> [...]

    > >
    > > Ha! I couldn't remember where I saw an official (official
    > > is to be debated, I know) website tell me that I had to use
    > > "language='Javascript1.2"

    >
    > The document referred to does not tell you this.
    >
    > > and that's where it was !
    > >
    > > So what's the deal? From what I understand we should use
    > > "type=text/javascript" and not the "language=...". Is there a clear
    > > explanation on an official website (i.e. not related to a particular
    > > product) that tells me what to do with this ?

    >
    > They already are (implicitly) telling you _not_ to use it.


    I must be a complete moron but when I read:

    <quote>
    Some behavior in the JavaScript engine is dependent on the language
    version. In browser embeddings, this language version is selected using
    the LANGUAGE attribute of the SCRIPT tag with values such as
    "JavaScript1.2".
    </quote>

    Then I understand "to use this particular engine you must specify
    "Javascript1.2" in the script tag"

    It's okay to tell me that i'm a complete moron.

    Matty.
     
    matty, Nov 20, 2005
    #16
  17. matty

    Randy Webb Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/20/2005 12:11 AM:
    > matty wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Luke Matuszewski wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/overview.html - go to the "JavaScript
    >>> Language Versions" paragraph.
    >>>[...]

    >>
    >>Ha! I couldn't remember where I saw an official (official
    >>is to be debated, I know) website tell me that I had to use
    >>"language='Javascript1.2"

    >
    >
    > The document referred to does not tell you this.
    >


    It does, just not directly.

    >
    >>and that's where it was !
    >>
    >>So what's the deal? From what I understand we should use
    >>"type=text/javascript" and not the "language=...". Is there a clear
    >>explanation on an official website (i.e. not related to a particular
    >>product) that tells me what to do with this ?

    >
    >
    > They already are (implicitly) telling you _not_ to use it.


    Nonsense. Whether you use it or not depends on the behavior you want.
    But to be in a position to decide the answer to that question, you have
    to understand the consequences of that action and if you truly
    understand the consequences, then the question becomes moot.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Nov 20, 2005
    #17
  18. matty

    Randy Webb Guest

    matty said the following on 11/20/2005 12:33 AM:

    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    >>They already are (implicitly) telling you _not_ to use it.

    >
    >
    > I must be a complete moron but when I read:


    You are not the moron.

    > <quote>
    > Some behavior in the JavaScript engine is dependent on the language
    > version. In browser embeddings, this language version is selected using
    > the LANGUAGE attribute of the SCRIPT tag with values such as
    > "JavaScript1.2".
    > </quote>
    >
    > Then I understand "to use this particular engine you must specify
    > "Javascript1.2" in the script tag"


    And whether you use that language attribute or not will be dependent on
    what behavior you are looking for. But to understand that behavior, and
    whether you want it or not, you have to understand the behaviors
    themselves. And once you understand them, the question becomes moot.

    The W3C tells you to use the type attribute (but I have never cared what
    W3C or ECMA say), but use the type attribute because it removes the
    language attribute differences/behaviors from certain browsers.

    > It's okay to tell me that i'm a complete moron.


    If it comes from Thomas, don't believe anything he says until you see it
    and understand it for yourself. He seems to think he is some kind of
    Einstein/NetCop but he's a complete idiot in that regards.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Nov 20, 2005
    #18
  19. matty

    matty Guest

    > >
    > > I must be a complete moron but when I read:

    >
    > You are not the moron.


    Thanks :)

    > And whether you use that language attribute or not will be dependent on
    > what behavior you are looking for. But to understand that behavior, and
    > whether you want it or not, you have to understand the behaviors
    > themselves. And once you understand them, the question becomes moot.


    No. The question is not moot. The question is: a MAJOR website is
    telling me that I should use the "language="javascriptx.x" to expect a
    specific behavior. People here tell me that I shouldn't follow the
    rules of the MAJOR website (my MAJOR I mean a website like Mozilla,
    which is supposedly following the standards). So yes, I am confused.

    >
    > The W3C tells you to use the type attribute (but I have never cared what
    > W3C or ECMA say)


    Why not? Aren't they supposed to be the standard? What do you care
    about?
    > > It's okay to tell me that i'm a complete moron.

    >
    > If it comes from Thomas, don't believe anything he says until you see it
    > and understand it for yourself. He seems to think he is some kind of
    > Einstein/NetCop but he's a complete idiot in that regards.


    I disagree with his overall attitude in treating most of the posters as
    total morons, but respect his knowledge and I have learned a lot by
    reading him.

    Matty.
     
    matty, Nov 20, 2005
    #19
  20. matty

    matty Guest

    > > They already are (implicitly) telling you _not_ to use it.
    >
    > Nonsense. Whether you use it or not depends on the behavior you want.


    The original question was if those constructs were legit. Is it a
    "standard" to use the "Javascript1.2" construct or not.

    > But to be in a position to decide the answer to that question, you have
    > to understand the consequences of that action and if you truly
    > understand the consequences, then the question becomes moot.


    Maybe it's because people do not understand the consequences that they
    ask questions in the first place.

    Matty.
     
    matty, Nov 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gene Mat

    NET::NNTP Undefined value error

    Gene Mat, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,711
    Gene Mat
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Mantorok Redgormor
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,797
    Dan Pop
    Feb 17, 2004
  3. perl Newbie
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    873
    perl Newbie
    May 6, 2009
  4. VK
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    624
    Dr John Stockton
    Sep 12, 2006
  5. -Lost
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    378
    Richard Cornford
    Jan 31, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page