Accessing the global object

[Bob]

Is there anyway to access the global object from inside a function other
than doing a "var _global = this;" before declaring the function?

Thanks

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

Peter Michaux wrote:

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

Peter Michaux wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
>On Feb 21, 5:10 pm, "Bob" <nob...@nowhere .comwrote:
>>Is there anyway to access the global object from inside a function
>>other than doing a "var _global = this;" before declaring the function?
>In a web browser the global object is usually available as a property
>"window" of the global object.
Nonsense. You are jumping to conclusions.
The word "usually" usually indicates one is not making a definitive
conclusion .
The word "usually" implies a perceived majority of cases where said
condition would apply.
Then I said what I meant. The overwhelming majority of JavaScript
hosts on earth are web browsers that have the global "window"
property.
Then I'm afraid your argument is a fallacious one indeed.

You've said things like this many times. As far as I know you have not
ever listed where these other billions of user agents are that are
not web browsers similar to IE4+/NN4+. Who/What/Where/Why/When/How are
they?

Your continuously missing the point,

If you clearly state your point then I will not miss it.

I stated that the overwhelming majority JavaScript hosts are web
browsers similar to NN4+ and IE4+. By this I also mean browsers like
IE7, FF2, etc. I am right. You seem to think I am wrong but you are
not able to identify these billions of JavaScript hosts that I should
consider. I would like to know to which billions of JavaScript hosts
you refer. They don't exist so you cannot do so. Instead you are
resorting to nitpicking about who has the burden of proof. Where are
your billions of hosts, Thomas? I'll even take hundreds of millions of
hosts if you can come up with those.

If you are trying to make some other point completely then I'm
interested what that is. There is no need to be so oblique about it.
Just say what you want to say in plain language. It cannot be so
difficult.

Peter

[Randy Webb]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/24/2008 5:04 PM:

Peter Michaux wrote:

>[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

>>Peter Michaux wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
>[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>>Peter Michaux wrote:
>>>On Feb 21, 5:10 pm, "Bob" <nob...@nowhere .comwrote:
>>>>Is there anyway to access the global object from inside a function
>>>>other than doing a "var _global = this;" before declaring the function?
>>>In a web browser the global object is usually available as a property
>>>"windo w" of the global object.
>>Nonsens e. You are jumping to conclusions.
>The word "usually" usually indicates one is not making a definitive
>conclusion .
The word "usually" implies a perceived majority of cases where said
condition would apply.
Then I said what I meant. The overwhelming majority of JavaScript
hosts on earth are web browsers that have the global "window"
property.
Then I'm afraid your argument is a fallacious one indeed.

You've said things like this many times. As far as I know you have not
ever listed where these other billions of user agents are that are
not web browsers similar to IE4+/NN4+. Who/What/Where/Why/When/How are
they?

Your continuously missing the point, and making just more fallacious
arguments (here again: shifting the burden of proof), is becoming tiresome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You say they exist, someone else says they don't and asks you to prove
your argument. You don't and constantly whine about "shifting the burden
of proof". It is simple to prove what you say, just name a browser
without the window object being the global object. But no, you choose to
constantly whine about it and wonder why your credibility is at the
level it is.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Peter Michaux]

On Mar 2, 10:34 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

[snip]

JFTR:http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/

So we have a maybe complete list of browsers used on mobile devices today.
However, that does not mean anything for tomorrow or user agents on other
devices.

So instead of having to check that list every day and update one's code
accordingly (which nobody could/would pay one for), one feature-tests for a
limited set of (in total) widely supported object models, including the
standardized one, and one will seldom have to change anything.

But how to choose that limited set? I have never read anyone's
concrete rules for making this choice but I have read criticism of the
mainstream library writers for their choices.

If it still happens that the code breaks in a user agent and that becomes
known to the developer, then one should maybe add a branch for that user
agent. That decision depends of course mostly on the bug in the user agent
that caused it, if it could be worked around at all. If not, the UA is
broken and should not be supported.

"maybe"? "mostly"?

I agree this is all grey area but people are frequently derided for
their choices in the grey areas. When pressed for justification I
haven't seen the critics present anything concrete.

Is it ok for a developer to say "I know this script destined for the
general web is broken in Internet Explorer 5.5 and Opera 9 but I don't
care?" It seems as though he would be ripped to shreds and accused an
idiot on c.l.js but he would simply respond "Those browsers are not
supported". That doesn't seem sufficient to the critics that don't
have objective support for their own similar decisions.

Peter

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Peter Michaux wrote:

>[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

>>So instead of having to check that list every day and update one's code
accordingly (which nobody could/would pay one for), one feature-tests for a
limited set of (in total) widely supported object models, including the
standardize d one, and one will seldom have to change anything.

But how to choose that limited set? I have never read anyone's
concrete rules for making this choice but I have read criticism of the
mainstream library writers for their choices.

I think that if you support the W3C DOM, the MSHTML DOM, the Opera DOM,
Apple WebCore, the KHTML DOM, and the NS4 DOM, you can be pretty sure that
your application does not break on the mobile device. [...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should have been "that you application works". Graceful degradation
and feature tests should prevent the application from breaking even if
exposed to an unknown DOM.
PointedEars

[VK]

<snip>
All I want from you is the definition of the "feature detection". You
either can give it or you have no idea what are you talking about. I
am not answering your questions until I see that.

[Peter Michaux]

On Mar 14, 10:30 am, VK <schools_r...@y ahoo.comwrote:

<snip>
All I want from you is the definition of the "feature detection". You
either can give it or you have no idea what are you talking about. I
am not answering your questions until I see that.

Did Richard not write the following?

<URL: http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/faq_notes/not_browser_det ect.html>

That should pretty much explain it for you.

Peter