I have the following web page with a script in it.
<html>
<head>
<title>Make Your Own Objects test</title>
<script>
function info(self,n,e) {
function showInfo(self,nam, ema) {
document.write("<hr>");
document.write("<b>Name: </b>"+nam);
document.write("<b>Email: </b>"+ema);
}
self.name = n;
self.email= e;
self.show() = showInfo(self.name,self.email);
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<script>
ali = info("Ali","al*@ali.com");
zainab = info("Zainab","za****@zainab.com");
ali.show();
zainab.show();
</script>
</body>
</html>
I want the script to make two objects: ali and zainab. These objects
are to have two properties (name and email) and a method (show). The
show method is supposed to display the other two properties of the
object.
Please Help. Thank You. :) 12 2144
Ali said: I have the following web page with a script in it.
I want the script to make two objects: ali and zainab. These objects are to have two properties (name and email) and a method (show). The show method is supposed to display the other two properties of the object.
Is this for a class, or are you trying to learn Javascript on your own?
Are you working from some sort of textbook or online tutorial?
Ali wrote: <html>
The DOCTYPE declaration is missing prior to this start tag, e.g.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
[...] <script>
^
The "type" attribute is missing:
<script type="text/javascript">
function info(self,n,e) {
function showInfo(self,nam, ema) {
Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations.
However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5. The question probably
answered below is: Why do you consider it necessary here?
document.write("<hr>");
document.write("<b>Name: </b>"+nam);
document.write("<b>Email: </b>"+ema);
}
self.name = n;
`self' refers to the current `window' object as this object is virtually
identical with the global object where the `self' property is available.
Assigning a value to its `name' property may not be possible. Most
certainly you are looking for `this.name'.
self.email= e; self.show() = showInfo(self.name,self.email);
^^
The call operator may only be used right hand side in JavaScipt,
ECMAScript and its implementations.
}
[...} <script>
See above.
ali = info("Ali","al*@ali.com"); zainab = info("Zainab","za****@zainab.com");
Variables should be declared, using the `var' keyword:
var ali = ...;
var zainab = ...;
Assuming that "info" is the constructor of an object, the proper syntax is
var ali = new info("Ali", "al*@ali.com");
var ali = new info("Zainab","za****@zainab.com");
ali.show(); zainab.show();>
However, if show() ought to be a method of "info" objects, the proper syntax
is
function info(n, e)
{
this.show = function info_show()
{
// escape ETAGO if used in HTML context
document.write("<hr>"
+ "<b>Name: <\/b>" + this.name
+ "<b>Email: <\/b>" + this.email);
}
// consider ... = x || ""; for a default value
this.name = n;
this.email = e;
}
or better if info_show() does not contain a closure:
function info(n, e)
{
// see above
this.name = n;
this.email = e;
}
info.prototype.show = function info_show()
{
document.write("<hr>"
+ "<b>Name: <\/b>" + this.name
+ "<b>Email: <\/b>" + this.email);
}
However, document.write() is not a proper method to output information
after the document has been loaded. It may add information to the
document temporarily or it may overwrite the entire document, including
the functions defined therein. Ask Google Groups for proper solutions.
To avoid confusion and undesired side effects with built-in properties,
good code style recommends to let constructor identifiers begin with an
uppercase letter:
function Info(...)
{
...
}
[...] I want the script to make two objects: ali and zainab. These objects are to have two properties (name and email) and a method (show). The show method is supposed to display the other two properties of the object.
And most certainly, you should have added that the properties
of the second object are not displayed (as expected).
"Does not work" is a useless error description. [psf 4.11]
Please read the FAQ before posting.
PointedEars
--
As the "BugFree(tm)" series didn't turn out so well, i'm starting a new
series called "ItWorksForMe(tm)" of which this new (browser) is yet another
shining example...
In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
<snip> Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
<snip>
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four
years.
John
--
John Harris
John G Harris wrote: In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
Please stop posting attribution novels; the reasons have been explained
(to you) several times before. Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four years.
I'd be happy to be wrong here and read about the required productions
from the ECMAScript 3 grammar in a posting of you.
PointedEars
--
Dance, Mozilla, Dance!
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: John G Harris wrote:
In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
Please stop posting attribution novels; the reasons have been explained (to you) several times before.
Considering that you are the only one that explains it, and you
generally and 100% explain it wrongly, thats just more of your unfounded
garbage spouting.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:26:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.de> wrote: John G Harris wrote:
In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
[snip] Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four years.
I'd be happy to be wrong here and read about the required productions from the ECMAScript 3 grammar in a posting of you.
Will I do?
Unless I'm missing something major (quite possible as I don't have this
thread in full), you seem to be suggesting that
function a() {
function b() {
}
}
is illegal. Is that correct? Well, in a code example, section 13.2 -
Creating Function Objects, they have written almost precisely the above.
If you want the associated grammar:
FunctionDeclaration :
function Identifier ( FormalParameterListopt ) { FunctionBody }
FunctionBody :
SourceElements
SourceElements :
SourceElement
SourceElements SourceElement
SourceElement :
Statement
FunctionDeclaration
That suggests to me that it is perfectly legal to nest functions to any
degree. I haven't checked to any great extent to see if the text notes
limitations or exceptions, but I doubt there are any.
One thing I had noticed in the grammar is that you may not place function
declarations directly within a statement. As far as I can see, function
statements may only occur in:
- The program source at the "root" level.
- Other functions (expressions or statements).
- An eval() argument.
That would make something like:
if(...) {
function myFunction() {
}
}
illegal. However, a quick test shows that (at least some) browsers support
it. Why you'd do something like this, though, is another question.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Michael Winter wrote: On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:26:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote: John G Harris wrote: In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
<snip> Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
Nested function declarations and function expressions are supported by
Netscape 4 with JavaScript 1.3 and IE 4 (approx: JScript 2), about the
oldest browsers that remain viable as scriptable Internet user agents
(certainly the oldest considered for active support in a commercial
context, and often not then).
As is not unusual for such documents, the 3rd edition of ECMAScript was
formalising behaviour already common to implementations.
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four years.
And has been a standard feature of browser scripting engine
implementations considerably longer.
I'd be happy to be wrong here and read about the required productions from the ECMAScript 3 grammar in a posting of you. Will I do?
Unless I'm missing something major (quite possible as I don't have this thread in full), you seem to be suggesting that
function a() { function b() { } }
is illegal. Is that correct? Well, in a code example, section 13.2 - Creating Function Objects, they have written almost precisely the above.
If nested functions were not explicitly supported there would not be
much point in ECMA 262 (3rd edition) going into quite so much detail
about how the scope chain and the internal [[Scope]] properties are
handled, as there would be no ECMAScript circumstances where it would
make any difference (which is probably why the second edition can get
away with defining only one form of scope chain for any execution
context).
If you want the associated grammar:
FunctionDeclaration : function Identifier ( FormalParameterListopt ) { FunctionBody }
FunctionBody : SourceElements
SourceElements : SourceElement SourceElements SourceElement
SourceElement : Statement FunctionDeclaration
Yes, function bodies may explicitly contain function declarations, and
function expressions may appear anywhere that a MemberExpression can be
used:-
| 11.2 Left-Hand-Side Expressions
| Syntax
| MemberExpression :
| PrimaryExpression
| FunctionExpression
| MemberExpression [ Expression ]
| MemberExpression . Identifier
| new MemberExpression Arguments
That suggests to me that it is perfectly legal to nest functions to any degree. I haven't checked to any great extent to see if the text notes limitations or exceptions, but I doubt there are any.
One thing I had noticed in the grammar is that you may not place function declarations directly within a statement. As far as I can see, function statements may only occur in:
- The program source at the "root" level. - Other functions (expressions or statements). - An eval() argument.
That would make something like:
if(...) { function myFunction() { } }
illegal. However, a quick test shows that (at least some) browsers support it.
More involved tests would show extremely inconsistent handling of that
code. The production rules forbid a function declaration form appearing
within a block statement so the only valid ECMAScript interpretation of
that is as a function expression with optional identifier, and just
asserted (never assigned to anything or called, so a pointless
expression).
In practice browsers may take it as a function declaration (unless
explicitly parenthesised, which makes it unambiguously an expression)
and act on it during variable instantiation (effectively removing it
form its block context), and Mozilla browsers treat it as an expression
but erroneously (by ECMA 262) leak the optional identifier into the
containing scope (producing an effect indistinguishable form a
conditional function declaration (if such existed in ECMAScript).
Why you'd do something like this, though, is another question.
You wouldn't, but an inner function expression, conditionally evaluated
and assigned, is completely normal.
Richard.
Richard Cornford wrote: Michael Winter wrote: FunctionDeclaration : function Identifier ( FormalParameterListopt ) { FunctionBody }
FunctionBody : SourceElements
SourceElements : SourceElement SourceElements SourceElement
SourceElement : Statement FunctionDeclaration Yes, function bodies may explicitly contain function declarations,
ACK, but only at first level.
and function expressions may appear anywhere that a MemberExpression can be used:-
| 11.2 Left-Hand-Side Expressions | Syntax | MemberExpression : | PrimaryExpression | FunctionExpression | MemberExpression [ Expression ] | MemberExpression . Identifier | new MemberExpression Arguments
However, the flaw of the latter argument (if that is what it is supposed
to be) is that a FunctionExpression is not a FunctionDeclaration and
vice-versa.
PointedEars
JRS: In article <20****************@PointedEars.de>, dated Sun, 17 Oct
2004 23:26:27, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted : John G Harris wrote:
In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
Please stop posting attribution novels; the reasons have been explained (to you) several times before.
They are invalid reasons. There is no support for them in accepted
Usenet standards and norms; and Usefor WIP allows a full attribution
such as I use.
You may recall that the German nation got rather a bad name in the early
1870s, the 1910s, and in 1933-45. It seems unwise of you to attempt to
repeat the situation single-handedly.
Given your rather silly habit of reviving ancient threads, threads that
the saner readers of c.l.j have long lost interest in, threads that are
no longer conveniently accessible to those using off-line newsreaders,
putting the date of the previous article in an attribution would be a
convenience to users of the group -- it is not always possible to
determine the date of a previous article from its message-ID in
References, and, when it is possible, many will not know how to do it,
and others find it inconvenient to understand.
In brief, pleas cease your Schickelgrubing. Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four years.
I'd be happy to be wrong here and read about the required productions from the ECMAScript 3 grammar in a posting of you.
They are supported in MSIE4, which Flanagan says is JS 1.2; that is over
six years old.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
JRS: In article <opsf1ccriyx13kvk@atlantis>, dated Sun, 17 Oct 2004
22:19:29, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Michael Winter <M.Winter@bl
ueyonder.co.invalid> posted : That would make something like:
if(...) { function myFunction() { } }
illegal. However, a quick test shows that (at least some) browsers support it. Why you'd do something like this, though, is another question.
My IE4 allows it, but does not support it.
In other words, the condition is ignored, and the new function is always
defined.
It's easy to see that one might well want to replace a function that is
already defined, and that looks a reasonable way of doing it. There are
probably other ways, though, so that one is not necessary.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:07:37 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: JRS: In article <opsf1ccriyx13kvk@atlantis>, dated Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:19:29, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Michael Winter <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> posted :
That would make something like:
if(...) { function myFunction() { } }
[snip]
It's easy to see that one might well want to replace a function that is already defined,
Of course. A self-configuring script could use it to replace a
decision-making function with a single code path. Initially, the function
tests the environment, and if it's sure that the browser will be
consistent, it could replace itself with code that uses a particular
feature set rather than selecting on each invocation, increasing the
performance of subsequent executions. I believe Richard used that in his
Russian Doll pattern demonstration, and I have, too (though to a simpler
extent).
and that looks a reasonable way of doing it. There are probably other ways, though, so that one is not necessary.
The correct way would be:
var functionName = function( argumentList ) {
};
that is, a function expression. As function declarations are evaluated
when the relevant scope is entered, I'd imagine[1] that the last function
would always be the one referenced by the identifier, irrespective of
whatever conditional statements might surround it. That was why I asked
what the point would be.
Mike
[1] Read: untested. As it's not legal, so something I wouldn't do, I
haven't given it much attention. As Richard hinted, implementations will
probably vary anyway, so best avoid it. As you supposed: there are other
ways.
--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
In article <20****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes John G Harris wrote:
In article <13****************@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes
Please stop posting attribution novels; the reasons have been explained (to you) several times before.
It isn't, and you haven't. Nested functions are not allowed in ECMAScript and implementations. However, it is supported in JavaScript 1.5.
It is allowed in ECMAScript v3, which has been around for over four years.
I'd be happy to be wrong here and read about the required productions from the ECMAScript 3 grammar in a posting of you.
I'm amazed that you can make such a dogmatic statement about ECMAScript
without being able to look it up.
You must read ECMA 262, v3, sections 13 and 14.
John
--
John Harris This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Oliver Spiesshofer |
last post by:
Hi,
I have a script that calls an fopen() on an external URL.
I can run the script from the server as an url fine.
When however the script should be run from crontab, it does not work.
I get
...
|
by: Catherine |
last post by:
I am having a problem viewing asp pages on iis version
5.1 xp pro.
HTML pages are viewable on http://localhost but .asp
pages are not. I have created a test program called
timetest.asp with the...
|
by: Allen Thompson |
last post by:
sorry for the simple question, haven't done this in a while. when I use the
following script it keeps displaying the value of "x" like a string. for
example, if I type the number 7 in the prompt,...
|
by: Steve Westwood |
last post by:
I have a WebForm button. Depending on calculation I wont to send a popup
message to the web page. I am not sure of the approach. From the server
side code I don't seem to be able to access the...
|
by: news frontiernet.net |
last post by:
I have a project that uses mouse-over JS script to show and hide layers that
works well in MSIE 6.0 and Opera.
But, it does not work in NS nor Mozilla.
It is here: ...
|
by: Dufus |
last post by:
<a id="MyDataList__ctl1_edit_Button" NAME="edit_Button"
OnMousedown="EnableValidators('editGroup_');" href="javascript:{if
(typeof(Page_ClientValidate) != 'function' || Page_ClientValidate())...
|
by: Ronan Dodworth |
last post by:
Hi there
I'm having a little bit of a problem with my customvalidator control.
The problem is the javascript runs fine on my local webserver IIS but
not when I post it to the web hosting server....
|
by: squash |
last post by:
The following code works fine in Firefox/Netscape but wont work in IE.
I suspect the problem is with one of these two simple functions. If
there is no obvious error Ill paste the entire code.
...
|
by: theJonster |
last post by:
Hi
I am embedding a swf object. I try:
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts/swfobject.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var flashvars = {
...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 7 Feb 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this month's session, the creator of the excellent VBE...
|
by: MeoLessi9 |
last post by:
I have VirtualBox installed on Windows 11 and now I would like to install Kali on a virtual machine. However, on the official website, I see two options: "Installer images" and "Virtual machines"....
|
by: DolphinDB |
last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further!
In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
|
by: Aftab Ahmad |
last post by:
Hello Experts!
I have written a code in MS Access for a cmd called "WhatsApp Message" to open WhatsApp using that very code but the problem is that it gives a popup message everytime I clicked on...
|
by: Aftab Ahmad |
last post by:
So, I have written a code for a cmd called "Send WhatsApp Message" to open and send WhatsApp messaage. The code is given below.
Dim IE As Object
Set IE =...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
|
by: jfyes |
last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
|
by: PapaRatzi |
last post by:
Hello,
I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
| |