removing array item

[J. J. Cale]

I have the following. There must be something less cumbersome without push
pop. The function parameter obj is the event.srcElemen t and has the
attributes(prop erties?) picNum and alb pinned to it. The function is part of
a process to delete the selected obj, a photo in this case from the album
vis albumArr. TIA
Jimbo
function Album(albumName ) {
this.name=album Name;
this.paths=new Array();
}
var albumArr(); // holds an array of Albums();
function removeArrSrc(ob j) {
var dummy=new Array();
for(i=0;i<album Arr.length;i++) {
dummy[i]=new Album(albumArr[i].name);
var el=albumArr[i].paths;
for(var j=0;j<el.length ;j++) {
if(dummy[i].name==obj.alb) {
if(j==obj.picNu m) continue;
}
var len=dummy[i].paths.length;
dummy[i].paths[len]=el[j];
}
}
albumArr=dummy;
}

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

It cannot be omitted, the expressions are not optional in all
implementations .
Can you name one where it isn't?

Micro$oft JScript, according to the MSDN Library, which IIRC matches
reality in IE 6 SP-1 on Win2k SP-4.
All three expressions are optional in Javascript 1.0 (tested in
Netscape 2.02) and in ECMAScript v1.

Yes, but non sequitur.
PointedEars
--
Bugzilla: It's not just for people with `e's in their names, anymore!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

J. J. Cale wrote:

"Michael Winter" <M.******@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote in message
news:opsdjinqrx x13kvk@atlantis ...

Please do not write attribution novels and trim your quotes.
<http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.htm l>

I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I'm certain it'll cause an
error on most browsers. Perhaps you meant:

var albumArr = [];

Sorry! It is declared var albumArr=new Array();

Both statements are equivalent, while the former (array literal) requires
AFAIK JavaScript 1.3 (supported from Netscape Navigator 4.0 on) and
compatibles, and later. If standards compliant, the implementation must
be standards compliant to ECMAScript 3.
Your Reply-To header still does not comply with Internet/Usenet standards.
no********@nowa y012.net.il. is not an e-mail address!
PointedEars
--
squared over see squared

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

Micro$oft JScript, according to the MSDN Library, which IIRC matches
reality in IE 6 SP-1 on Win2k SP-4.

I don't have SP-1, but in IE 6 SP-2 (version
"6.0.2900.2180. xpsp_sp2_rtm.04 0803-2158") on WinXP, this script alerts
"10" as it should:
---
var x = 4;
var y = 0;
for(;;){y+=x--;if (!x) {break;}}
alert(y);
---
It seems to work as far back as IE 4 (I can't get IE 3 to run scripts)

The MSDN library is not a complete reference. There are features that
are not listed, and listed features that have unlisted exceptions.

I would be very surprised if there are any Javascript/ECMAScript/JScript-
implementations that doesn't allow you to omit all three expressions
of a "for", as that has been the expected behavior of the "for" construct
in all languages using a "C"-language-like "for" construct.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

Micro$oft JScript, according to the MSDN Library, which IIRC matches
reality in IE 6 SP-1 on Win2k SP-4.
I don't have SP-1, but in IE 6 SP-2 (version
"6.0.2900.2180. xpsp_sp2_rtm.04 0803-2158") on WinXP, this script alerts
"10" as it should:
---
var x = 4;
var y = 0;
for(;;){y+=x--;if (!x) {break;}}
alert(y);
---
It seems to work as far back as IE 4 (I can't get IE 3 to run scripts)

Apparently, my mistake was to omit the trailing ";" in

for (var x = a.length; x--;)

Reincluding it, my example code also works in my IE (see above),
and yours works, of course.
The MSDN library is not a complete reference. There are features that
are not listed, and listed features that have unlisted exceptions.
Unfortunately, yes.
I would be very surprised if there are any Javascript/ECMAScript/JScript-
implementations that doesn't allow you to omit all three expressions
of a "for", as that has been the expected behavior of the "for" construct
in all languages using a "C"-language-like "for" construct.

Me too. According to the Client-side JavaScript 1.3 Reference,
they were already optional in JavaScript 1.0 (1995) and in the
first edition of ECMAScript (1997).
PointedEars
--
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.