|
Replies:
6
-
Pages:
1
-
Last Post:
May 4, 2008 4:50 AM
by: room51
|
|
|
Posts:
28
From:
Nottingham, UK
Registered:
4/30/08
|
|
|
|
Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 1, 2008 3:58 PM
|
|
Are you actually being vindictive or am I just too timid?
In listing 3-20 you use the variable i throughout. Is this common practice, recommended or necessary? Your listing has: (i changed to j)
for ( var j = 0; j < div.length; j++ ) (function(j){
div[j].addEventListener("click", function(){
alert( "div #" + j + " was clicked." );
}, false);
})(j);
Or, is the i in the looped function just a dummy variable? How would changing it affect the readability of the listing?
for ( var i = 0; i < div.length; i++ ) (function(n){
div[n].addEventListener("click", function(){
alert( "div #" + n + " was clicked." );
}, false);
})(i);
|
|
Posts:
13
From:
Boston, MA
Registered:
5/1/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 1, 2008 4:26 PM
in response to:
room51
|
|
That was done intentionally - there's no reason to have two variables with two names that represent the same thing. Keeping the names identical keeps their intent identical as well (you don't have to think "oh, I'm looping with i but I call it n inside here").
|
|
Posts:
28
From:
Nottingham, UK
Registered:
4/30/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 1, 2008 4:33 PM
in response to:
room51
|
|
Okay, excellent. That makes good sense.
I think my niggling confusion was coming from the fact that the chapter is about closures. Without the executed anonymous function, the event listener had a closure which had i = 2. With the inner function we have a new closure using the i argument of the function, although the original closure is still there with i = 2.
Does that make any sense?
|
|
Posts:
28
From:
Nottingham, UK
Registered:
4/30/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 1, 2008 4:41 PM
in response to:
room51
|
|
Ah!
The original closure isn't there. Which is the point of executing the inner function. And, so, using i all the way through makes perfect sense.
Thanks.
|
|
Posts:
28
From:
Nottingham, UK
Registered:
4/30/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 2, 2008 2:40 PM
in response to:
room51
|
|
Trying to get my head around these ideas, I've created some examples which I think follow on accurately from the text.
http://www.room51.co.uk/js/closures.html
|
|
Posts:
13
From:
Boston, MA
Registered:
5/1/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 2, 2008 2:53 PM
in response to:
room51
|
|
That looks real good! I'd offer an alternative to the last one:
(function() {
for (var i = 1; i < 4; i++) (function(i){
document.getElementById("btn5_" + i).onclick = function() {alert(i)};
})(i);
})();
It's, debatably, easier to understand. For me it is, at least. By adding in the extra anonymous function around the loop itself I can be confident that the closure state of everything inside of it will be maintained properly (rather than having to handle each closure individually).
|
|
Posts:
28
From:
Nottingham, UK
Registered:
4/30/08
|
|
|
|
Re: Loopy Loops: Listing 3-20
Posted:
May 3, 2008 2:15 AM
in response to:
jeresig
|
|
Great! I had to think about it for a while and having slept on it I think I understand the changes.
* The i for the button id and the alert are both together inside the same inner function.
* The button id uses the i parameter immediately.
* The alert maintains a reference to the i parameter via a closure.
This seems similar to my example apart from
* The loop i is passed into the function to set the button id rather than setting the id directly.
* There is no need to return a function from a function to set the handler.
I've attributed the example to you on my example page. I hope that's okay.
For reference, here's my version
(function() {
for (var i = 1; i < 4; i++) {
document.getElementById("btn5_" + i).onclick = function(i) {
return function() {alert(i)};
}(i);
};
})();
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Gold: 300
+
pts
|
|
Silver: 100
- 299
pts
|
|
Bronze: 25
- 99
pts
|
|
Manning Author
|
|
Manning Staff
|
|
