undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

[Richard Cornford]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK wrote:

>><undefinedval ue means that the entity you tried to access
>>doesn't exists in the current execution context.

>

>Not in javascript.

>
Everywhere in the programming languages made by humans.

So you can cite examples of other languages that have a concrete
manifestation of something called 'undefined'? Because in javascript
there is a value of the Undefined type the meaning of undefined within
the language is specific and certain. You preference for some vague
concept derived from your misconceptions of other languages does not
alter the fact that in javascript the meaning is specific.

In javascript Undefined is a single value of a single type,
exactly like Null is a single value of a single type.

>
I am not aware of Undefined (capital 'U') value in JavaScript nor of
Null (capital N) value.

That will neither be the first thing nor the last thing that you are
unaware off.

That seems like ECMAScript crap, if not then
show them to me.

The type names in ECMAScript have initial upper case letters. That
allows the type to be distinguished from the value whenever doing so is
significant (which is never really is as far as Undefined and Null are
concerted as each type only has one value).

I am aware of Global properties:
undefined (small 'u')
Infinity
NaN
>
There is also null (small 'n') which is not a property of Global,

No, it is a null literal. (undefined, Infinity and NaN are just the
Identifiers of global variables as far as javascript is concerned, and
all may be overwritten with new values).

never declared yet known to the script from the very beginning.

It is part of the languae (ECMA 262 3rd Ed. Section 7.8.1):-

| 7.8.1 Null Literals
| Syntax
| NullLiteral ::
| null
|
| Semantics
| The value of the null literal null is the sole value of the Null
| type, namely null.

- a literal, like - true - and - false - are literals of Boolean type.

>>it means that this entity never was initialized:
>>"it has never seen the assignment sign
>>(=) from its right".

>

>Then it would not be possible to assign an undefined value.

>
You're hitting the border of understanding of the problem! Don't
loose your concentration now.

No, I am explaining why your assertion of meaning must be false. If
something really did mean that "it had never seen the assignment sign"
then assignment of that something must be precluded.

>While in reality it is extremely easy to assign an undefined value.

>
I said don't loose the concentration :-) :-(

It is a fact that the undefined value can be assigned to variables and
object properties.

Don't think of "what they said I can do with it?" and keep thinking
on "what is it?"

What it is is a value, and values can normally be assigned, unless they
are only used internally like 16 bit unsigned integers, but undefined
is not only used internally.

>What is an "undefined entity" in relation to javascript?

>
The same as in the relation to any other language:
"this entity never existed or doesn't exist anymore".

The undefined value is not an entity that never existed or has ceased
to exist. It is the single value of the Undefined type.

>As the undefined value is just a value
>it should be possible to assign it.

>
We are loosing him... Oxygen! :-)

Is there a reason that you think values that are available in a
language should not be assignable?

Infinity - endless infinity

<snip>

IEEE 754 Infinity.

NaN - not a number, something what even not equal to itself
null - this entity contains no valid data

In javascript null is a single primitive value of the Null type.

undefined - this entity doesn't exist

In javascript undefined is a value, and so certainly does exist, along
with anything to which the undefined value is assigned.

...sure: regular values just like 0, 1, "foobar"... no difference at
all :-)

To the extent that they are all values of some type or another they are
not different.

Or maybe human mind's *abstractions* brought into programming
context to *compare* with or (in case with null) to mark data holders
as free for garbage collection?

What are you wittering on about now. Are you proposing that null is
used to mark "holders" as free for garbage collection? How does that
work then?

I even recall some *really* old discussions about null and how
bad is it that they did not make it a Global property "just like
everything else". I'm glad they didn't and I'm sorry they violated
poor undefined.

There is little point in your recalling a discussions that if it was
worth while will have gone straight over your head, and you would have
misunderstood anyway.

IMHO

Your opinions are, as always, worthless.

Richard.

[Matt Kruse]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK wrote:

<undefinedval ue means that the entity you tried to access doesn't
exists in the current execution context.

Try to think of it this way:

Undefined is like your knowledge of javascript - it has been declared,
but currently holds no value.


Actually, I don't understand why such knowledgeable people as Richard and
Michael take their time to respond to you in such detail. You are clearly
wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or arguing about which methods of
development are best. A simple form-letter followup posted once to each of
your uninformed threads would be quite sufficient as a warning against the
information contained in the post for anyone finding it in the future via
google groups, for example.

<FAQENTRY>
VK is a clueless troll. Disregard everything he writes.
</FAQENTRY>

PS: VK, do you have a web site where we can see your advanced theories in
action? Actions always speak louder than words. Thanks!

--
Matt Kruse

http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com

http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

[Richard Cornford]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK wrote:

>>I never was against an accurate information. But it is not a pleasure
>>to talk with person who shows to everyone: "there is only two opinions:
>>my opinion and wrong opinion".

>>
>I find Richard's posts to be educative and informational. Sometimes I
>learn a lot about the innards of JavaScript just by looking at his
>replies to VK's ramblings :)

>
Richard Cornford is the oldest clj poster (by the posting period) after
Jim Ley (1999), but Jim Lay posts very rarely now.

Trust you to not even be able to work out a simple chronological
sequence. There are at least half a dozen regular contributors to this
group who pre-data my participation, by many years in some cases.

Richard Cornford is also official group FAQ editor and poster since
March 2004 and till very recently.

Most people take not knowing what they are talking about as a reason
for being silent.

If you got a code from Rechard, you can be sure that it works
and what thoughts are being put to make it work in the best way.

Your opinion is, as always, utterly worthless.

At the same time it is a stabbering a**h***, f* paper eater, ennemie
of progress,

This is a progress in the sense of doing things worse than they have
ever been done before? (quite an achievement when you are taking web
development)

and many other things I hate. :-) / :-|

Do you hate the truth? You seem to give it a very wide berth.

Richard.

[TC]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])


VK wrote:

<undefinedval ue means that the entity you tried to access
doesn't exists in the current execution context.

>

Not in javascript.

>
Everywhere in the programming languages made by humans.

Not so. There's at least one other common programming language with a
similar construct (VBA, with vbEmpty).

TC (MVP MSAccess)

http://tc2.atspace.com

[Michael Winter]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

Matt Kruse wrote:

[snip]

Actually, I don't understand why such knowledgeable people as Richard
and Michael take their time to respond to you in such detail.

It used to be that I thought I might manage to teach VK something.
Experience has taught /me/ otherwise.

A simple form-letter followup posted once to each of your uninformed
threads would be quite sufficient as a warning against the
information contained in the post for anyone finding it in the future
via google groups, for example.

It's tempting, but would it be convincing? At least a discussion puts
some weight behind a reply. It even seems to be worthwhile for some
people reading, even if it is above VK's head.

<FA**NTRY>
VK is a clueless troll. Disregard everything he writes.
</FA**NTRY>

One must remember that, with random chance alone, VK's got to get
something right occasionally. :-)

[snip]

Mike

[VK]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

Matt Kruse wrote:

Actually, I don't understand why such knowledgeable people as Richard and
Michael take their time to respond to you in such detail.

You may ask them. Primarely because "my word has to be the last one",
secondly because "where can be only one king", thirdly because there is
something to analize and find an explanation, even if it seems to have
=>0 practical value (just guessing).

besides {1,,2] there are now [1,undefined,2] discrepancies among
browsers. Did you really know that before this thread? I doubt it very
much, I give 99% chance that you played with the script I posted, then
you found relevant bug filings/discussion and now from the top of the
newly obtained knowledge you're saying what you're saying.

A simple form-letter followup posted once to each of
your uninformed threads would be quite sufficient as a warning against the
information contained in the post for anyone finding it in the future via
google groups, for example.

Start from
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/msg/f3e08dd5bf3c864 1>
and go down by dates.

<FAQENTRY>
VK is a clueless troll. Disregard everything he writes.
</FAQENTRY>

....

PS: VK, do you have a web site where we can see your advanced theories in
action? Actions always speak louder than words. Thanks!

I do program for money on per project basis, so not every piece of code
is available for public domain. Also what point of it would be to
discuss say a behaviors library or a SVG/VML library in clj?
To listen about how useless and harmful 3rd party libraries are as
such? That it doesn't "work" for IE4/Safary/GodKnowsWhat 0.x ? That
namespaces do not exist and not allowed in HTML so "this is wrong no
matter if it works or not"?
This kind of crap I'm getting enough without posting anything.

You may look in the archives for my sample of attachable AJAX behavior
sample. Together with its Gecko binding twinpair it was successfully
destributed. I've never seen
any reaction on it in clj, even regular "put him down" follow-ups. That
was totally uninteresting I guess.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK wrote:

Matt Kruse wrote:

>Actually, I don't understand why such knowledgeable
>people as Richard and Michael take their time to
>respond to you in such detail.

>
You may ask them. Primarely because "my word has to
be the last one", secondly because "where can be only
one king", thirdly because there is something to analize
and find an explanation, even if it seems to

So you are not even considering that it is because you are wrong and if
nobody points that out you will remain wrong?

have =>0 practical value (just guessing).

Zero or grater practical value? There is that screwed up logic that
makes you such a spectacularly bad programmer.

besides {1,,2] there are now [1,undefined,2] discrepancies
among browsers. Did you really know that before this thread?

The whole subject has been gone into in depth before. But are you
proposing that anyone would have been better informed as a result of
your completely false original post?

I doubt it very much,

You should not project your own limitations onto others.

I give 99% chance that you played with the script I
posted, then you found relevant bug filings/discussion
and now from the top of the newly obtained knowledge
you're saying what you're saying.

You are forgetting that the "new Array() vs []" thread resolved this
question before you even posted. But I will wager than the people who
did learn something from this thread learnt it from the corrections you
received and not from anything you actually posted.

>A simple form-letter followup posted once to each of
>your uninformed threads would be quite sufficient as
>a warning against the information contained in the
>post for anyone finding it in the future via google
>groups, for example.

>
Start from
>

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp....3e08dd5bf3c864
1>

and go down by dates.

So how many times have you been corrected by now? And how many times on
the same subject reportedly?

><FA***RY>
>VK is a clueless troll. Disregard everything he writes.
></FA***RY>

I don't think VK is a troll, that would imply malice. Mental illness is
the most comprehensive explanation of his posting record.

>PS: VK, do you have a web site where we can see your advanced
>theories in action? Actions always speak louder than words. Thanks!

<snip>

... ? That it doesn't "work" for IE4/Safary/GodKnowsWhat 0.x ?
That namespaces do not exist and not allowed in HTML so
"this is wrong no matter if it works or not"?
This kind of crap I'm getting enough without posting anything.

Your not posting would certainly be an ideal outcome from my point of
view.

You may look in the archives for my sample of attachable
AJAX behavior sample. Together with its Gecko binding
twinpair it was successfully destributed. I've never seen
any reaction on it in clj, even regular "put him down"
follow-ups.

You have added not seeing to not understanding. But didn't the
overwhelming disinterest in the Google group you started on the subject
tip you off that not even the least well informed web developers are
interested in a strategy that requires more than double the work to
achieve on two browsers something that is inherent in the language (and
so all current implementations ) already?

That was totally uninteresting I guess.

It is interesting when you demonstrate something that an be achieved in
that way that cannot be achieved in any other way, and even then it is
only interesting in relation to specialist Intranet applications. Your
record on actually demonstrating anything is so poor that it is unlikely
that you ever could.

Richard.

[John G Harris]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

In article <1157981267.961 243.290400@i3g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>, VK
<schools_ring@y ahoo.comwrites

<snip>

><undefinedvalu e means that the entity you tried to access doesn't
>exists in the current execution context. Technically it means that this
>entity never was initialized: "it has never seen the assignment sign
>(=) from its right". Wherever whenever we had an assignment then we
>don't have an undefined entity there anymore. Rather simple, is not it?
>Yet there can be an unforeseen confusion in JavaScript due to the
>erroneous decision to let undefined value to be *assigned*: in
>violation of the very nature of undefined and in violation of any
>programming logic.
>But if one learned well what does <undefinedmea n (see the definition
>atop), she will never be confused. She will just smile over some
>passages in the ECMAScript specs.

<snip>

Let's try once again. Call it 'glub' as other names can confuse people.

Whenever a variable is created its initial value is glub; it will keep
that value until some other value is assigned to the variable.

ECMAScript v2 :
Originally we had
glub == null
There was no way of telling these two values apart. Consequently there
was no point in allowing programmers to assign glub to a variable. They
might as well assign null as that had the same effect.

(Actually you could tell them apart : you could make the program crash
if the value was glub, but this wasn't much use as try ... catch had yet
to appear.)


ECMAScript v3 :
We still have
glub == null
but we also have
!( glub === null )
so there is now a way of telling them apart. People who write tricky,
and probably fragile, code would want to be able to assign either value
to variables. It had to become legal to write
x = glub;
and this had to make the value of x become glub, the same value that x
had before it was first assigned to.

By rights glub should be a reserved word just as null and true and false
are. But retrospectively making it impossible to use 'glub' as an
identifier risks crashing some high profile web site who've already used
the name 'glub', leading to very loud shouting and threats of lawsuits.

To avoid this, glub is made a global variable with the attribute Don't
Delete, but *not* Read Only so overwriting it won't cause problems in
old code.

There's another problem. 'glub' is a word that is meaningless in English
so many web designers would find it difficult to remember. 'glub' might
also be a rude word in some populous non-English language.

So, let's call it 'undefined'. That's just an arbitrary name; its
meaning is still glub.

>The one who still remembers
>what does <undefinedmea ns in the programming

<snip>

The C++ standard uses the term "undefined behaviour" a lot. The standard
specifies the behaviour of "undefined behaviour" very precisely, thus
demonstrating that your "one" has a defective memory.

John
--
John Harris

[Ray]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])


scriptguru@gmai l.com wrote:

ECMA-262-3 specification is even more informative and eductional
(because half of Richard's replies is quotes from ECMA-262-3 and the
rest is talks like "you dumbass").
You can just read the specification.

Nah... I prefer reading something like Mr. Flanagan's book. But
Richard's post I read because often they teach me something new about
JS.

I believe that you are real JS guru, but sometimes you realy rough with
people. BTW you are not the only man here who love and know JS.

And... ? Rough with who?

Who cares? IMHO even if somebody writes something realy wrong (or just
have own opinion) it is not enouh to be rough.

Well the thing is when it comes to a spec, there's not much room for an
opinion, is there? Either you're wrong or you're right. And personally,
I appreciate Richard's effort to inform people in this newsgroup of
what is right.

If you write something really wrong, get corrected, and get why you are
corrected, I doubt he'll be rough :)

Val

[Randy Webb]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

Michael Winter said the following on 9/11/2006 12:18 PM:

<snip>

As usual, you find yourself alone, yet you're either too stubborn to
admit your mistake, or too stupid to recognise it.

I vote the latter and is compounded by the former.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK said the following on 9/11/2006 12:36 PM:

>>I never was against an accurate information. But it is not a pleasure
>>to talk with person who shows to everyone: "there is only two opinions:
>>my opinion and wrong opinion".

>I find Richard's posts to be educative and informational. Sometimes I
>learn a lot about the innards of JavaScript just by looking at his
>replies to VK's ramblings :)

>
Richard Cornford is the oldest clj poster (by the posting period) after
Jim Ley (1999), but Jim Lay posts very rarely now.

I know of at least 3 that have been around longer than Richard other
then Jim Ley.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

Michael Winter said the following on 9/11/2006 3:26 PM:

One must remember that, with random chance alone, VK's got to get
something right occasionally. :-)

That chance hasn't come around yet though.

VK, post this:

<quote>
The FAQ for this group is at http://jibbering.com/faq
</quote>

Then, you can be right for once......
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[VK]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

Matt Kruse wrote:

Try to think of it this way:
Undefined is like your knowledge of javascript - it has been declared,
but currently holds no value.

The question is not what does say [0,,2] suppose
to do upon ECMAScript specs. They could require
that on each elision the screen has to change
the bgcolor in the palette sequence.
The question is what does [0,,2] *mean* in the
programming context. For my deranged mind it
means the same since at least 1998: explicit
initialization of all array members (reflected
as properties in the underlying object).
Netscape 4.x (including Netscape 4.5 used as
basis for ECMAScript) behaved this way and no
one had any problem with it - though the usage
of elision is very rarely needed with a proper
programming.

But (and it brings us back to the definition of
"a bug") if a bug is only a non-compliance to
a written specification then
[0,,2] indeed became a bug overnight after
December 1999.
So shall be it. It is a "Mozilla bug".

<OT>
About "VK is extremely bad programmer, doesn't know JavaScript" and
such.

A from behind the corner burking of this kind do not put me down but of
course it does upset me. I wrote my fist line of JavaScript
in 1996, and in 1998 my PopUp calendar (IE4/NN4)
became a standard de-facto in Contra Costa county
with 30 licenses sold in the Bay Area and one even
to Australie. AFAIK all this happened years before
some of my critics even knew about JavaScript not
talking about programming on it.

As of to "show up" now: there is an extra obstacle as
don't want to reveal my personality and I want to stay
VK in c.l.j. This question was asked before and answered:
this way I can discuss my clients and their demands (often
the most idiotic ones) w/o letting to map - at least legally -
my name to my statements. That gives me a "freedom speech"
I'd like to keep. But indeed I may have to clean up and post
some samples of modern web-development even as a subject
of screaming and spitting. ECMAScript did not change
for almost 7 years now, and IMHO pathetic discussions over say
commas in array initializer is a sure sign of degradation.
Some fresh blood may be needed :-)

Also we take Matt's suggestion for action (that the code
samples is everything and words are nothing), then c.l.j.
would become a very silent place :-)

>From all current and former cabbal members I know for sure

only about Douglas Crockford (JSON) and Matt himself (AjaxToolbox)
that they can write quality programs in JavaScript.

>From say Richard Cornford in three years I've seen only one

self-contained application: a rather tedious scrollable table
script written more than two years ago. Ever since I did not see
a piece longer then a few lines (a dependent subroutine or a part
of dependent subroutine) - besides endless ECMA quoting.
</OT>
























<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/msg/f3e08dd5bf3c864 1>




null = Nothing

><undefinedvalu e means that the entity you tried to access

doesn't exists in the current execution context.

Not in javascript.

Everywhere in the programming languages made by humans.

Not so. There's at least one other common programming language with a
similar construct (VBA, with vbEmpty).






Perl
What happens if you use a scalar variable before you give it a value?
Nothing serious, and definitely nothing fatal. Variables have the undef
value before they are first assigned. This value looks like a zero when
used as a number, or the zero-length empty string when used as a
string. You will get a warning under Perl's -w switch, though, which is
a good way to catch programming errors.

So you can cite examples of other languages that have a concrete
manifestation of something called 'undefined'?

You mean like with Infinity or undefined as "real" entities stored
somewhere?
I don't know of such languages or systems and I doubt very much
they will ever appear: though it would be interesting to touch and feel
say
Infinitity while remaining in this world :-)
Alas everywhere (including JavaScript) these are just subroutines and
banal
1's and 0's interpreted in certain way in the program stream.

Because in javascript
there is a value of the Undefined type the meaning of undefined within
the language is specific and certain.

That is exactly the point I've made before: about the danger of
interpreting
a *language* by reading machine *engine* specifications. Low level
processes
keeping 1's and 0's in the needed order are not the same as higher
level
programming entities. On the lower level naturally there is no NaN or
Infinity or undefined or null or so. Yet they have to be represented
somehow

[VK]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])


VK wrote:
<snip>

of dependent subroutine) - besides endless ECMA quoting.
</OT>

woops... I posted my sketches by mistake after the end of the post.
It's supposed to end on</OT>
anything below it went trough by occasion.
Very embarassing... :-(

[Richard Cornford]

Re: undefined vs. undefined (was: new Array() vs [])

VK wrote:

Matt Kruse wrote:

Try to think of it this way:
Undefined is like your knowledge of javascript - it has been declared,
but currently holds no value.

>
The question is not what does say [0,,2] suppose
to do upon ECMAScript specs. They could require
that on each elision the screen has to change
the bgcolor in the palette sequence.

If someone assert that it should do one thing the question very much is
whether it should do that. You where the one asserting that elisions
should directly result in array index elements being created on an
array object, that was a wrong interpretation of what should happen.

The question is what does [0,,2] *mean* in the
programming context.

If we are talking about javascript the only relevant meaning is what it
means in javascript. What interpretations it may be subject to in other
contexts is completely irrelevant (isn't it a syntax error in Java?
does that make it a syntax error everywhere else?).

For my deranged mind it
means the same since at least 1998: explicit
initialization of all array members (reflected
as properties in the underlying object).

That is not quite enough of a sentence to mean anything, so it probably
is the product of your mind.

Netscape 4.x (including Netscape 4.5 used as
basis for ECMAScript)

Netscape 4 was an ECMA 262 2nd edition implementation.

behaved this way and no
one had any problem with it - though the usage
of elision is very rarely needed with a proper
programming.

Which is why implementation bugs in this area have little practical
impact, though (with the exception of Microsoft) they are being fixed.

But (and it brings us back to the definition of
"a bug") if a bug is only a non-compliance to
a written specification then
[0,,2] indeed became a bug overnight after
December 1999.

No, it became a bug when people announced that their script engines
were ECMA 262 3rd edition implementations .

So shall be it. It is a "Mozilla bug".

Yes, they claim to implement ECMA 262 3rd ed, so they can recognise
when they have a bug.

<OT>
About "VK is extremely bad programmer, doesn't know JavaScript" and
such.

VK writes programs that either demonstrate a failure to understand what
the code written actually does, or a tendency to do pointless things
with a full knowledge that they are pointless (such as returning null
from a function that is only used as constructor and putting the - void
- operator in front of a function call even though the result of the -
void - expression is never used).

A from behind the corner burking of this kind do not put me down
but of course it does upset me.

While a productive response would be to realise that the criticism is
valid and improve your knowledge and understanding to the point were
you could avoid writing fundamentally poor code.

I wrote my fist line of JavaScript
in 1996, and in 1998 my PopUp calendar (IE4/NN4)
became a standard de-facto in Contra Costa county
with 30 licenses sold in the Bay Area and one even
to Australie.

In a world where the general standard is appalling getting people who
don't know any better themselves to use poor scripts is not much of an
achievement.

AFAIK all this happened years before
some of my critics even knew about JavaScript not
talking about programming on it.

Yes, there seem to be many people who have acquired an infinitely
superior understanding of the subject in a relatively short period of
time. They have done that by recognising when they have been wrong and
doing something to change that. Your intransigence and groundless
belief that the understanding you think you currently have is already
faultless gets in the way of your progressing.

As of to "show up" now: there is an extra obstacle as
don't want to reveal my personality

It is your identity that you don't want to reveal (for very obvious
reasons), your personality is an open book.

and I want to stay VK in c.l.j.

Well at least that will help people find the extent of your folly in
the archives.

<snip>

ECMAScript did not change
for almost 7 years now,

Which is a good thing as the implementations are now very stable in
their conformance and the few remaining bugs are restricted to areas
that are almost never used. That makes understanding what ECMA 262 says
and means a very good practical guide to what can be expected of
implementations .

and IMHO pathetic discussions over say
commas in array initializer is a sure sign of degradation.
Some fresh blood may be needed :-)

Then why did you post the original post in this thread? Or is your
problem only that your post was discussed?

Also we take Matt's suggestion for action (that the code
samples is everything and words are nothing), then c.l.j.
would become a very silent place :-)

But opinions on how browser scripting should be done well from people
who do not even understand the code they write are worthless, so seeing
some of the code written by people is a reasonable criteria for
weighting their comments.

From all current and former cabbal members I know for sure
only about Douglas Crockford (JSON) and Matt himself (AjaxToolbox)
that they can write quality programs in JavaScript.

Not quite a sentence again

From say Richard Cornford in three years I've seen only one
self-contained application: a rather tedious scrollable table
script written more than two years ago. Ever since I did not see
a piece longer then a few lines (a dependent subroutine or a part
of dependent subroutine) - besides endless ECMA quoting.

And does the scrollable table work in more actual browsers that any
equivalent script available, and cleanly degrade to usable HTML in
every browser where it is not actively supported? Did it take less than
6 hours to write from start to its current state using pre-existing low
level components? And has it not needed any maintenance during its life
to date?

</OT>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/msg/f3e08dd5bf3c864 1>

Why, when you have made yourself look a total idiot do you insist on
trying to direct attention to the irrelevant? It doesn't fool anyone.

null = Nothing

Are you expressing one of your fantasies or trying to imply something
about javascript, where null is the singe value of the Null type?

<undefinedval ue means that the entity you tried to access
>>>doesn't exists in the current execution context.

>

>>Not in javascript.

>

>Everywhere in the programming languages made by humans.

>
Not so. There's at least one other common programming language with a
similar construct (VBA, with vbEmpty).

You have messed up your quoteing.

Perl
What happens ... .

<snip>

Perl defines javascript how?

>So you can cite examples of other languages that have a concrete
>manifestatio n of something called 'undefined'?

>
You mean like with Infinity or undefined as "real" entities stored
somewhere?

I mean something that is part of the langue, can be directly employed
by a programmer and is called 'undefined'. (The question would make
more sense if you had not edited its context away, but then you need it
to be derived of its context else your responses will look really
insane.)

I don't know of such languages or systems and I doubt very much
they will ever appear: though it would be interesting to touch and feel
say Infinitity while remaining in this world :-)

So is your position then that the real meaning of something that you
see as unique to javascript is determined by the meaning of something
else somewhere else?

Alas everywhere (including JavaScript) these are just subroutines
and banal 1's and 0's interpreted in certain way in the program
stream.

Your point?

>Because in javascript there is a value of the Undefined type
>the meaning of undefined within the language is specific and
>certain.

>
That is exactly the point I've made before: about the danger of
interpreting a *language* by reading machine *engine*
specifications. Low level processes keeping 1's and 0's in the
needed order are not the same as higher level programming
entities. On the lower level naturally there is no NaN or
Infinity or undefined or null or so. Yet they have to be represented
somehow

A value is a concept in programming languages, and they will have
representations in the language's implementation. They are also used;
assigned to variables/properties, returned from functions/methods and
so on. Your problem is that when you see - undefined - you are applying
a concept to it that is not the concept of a value, and that is sending
you off on a flight of fantasy.

A declared but not initialised variable may be a concept. Marking a
variable that is in that condition by provisionally assigning a
(preferably unique and fully identifiable) value to the variable is a
reasonable practice, but that does not turn the value assigned into the
concept of an uninitialised but declared variable.

You won't see that, but then logic has never featured in your intellect
(one of the reasons your code is so poor).

Richard.