Syntax for variables within a namespace

[gimme_this_gimme_that]

var BN = {
foo: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
z: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
}

I would like to add a member moo to BN whose definition is

var moo = {"a":"A","b","B"};

How do I do it?

Thanks

 

[Lee]

(e-mail address removed) said:

var BN = {
foo: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
z: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
}

I would like to add a member moo to BN whose definition is

var moo = {"a":"A","b","B"};

How do I do it?

The right hand side of your assignment to moo isn't valid Javascript syntax, so
there is no way to add it to BN. What are you really trying to do?


--

 

[gimme_this_gimme_that]

moo is a hash.

 

[RobG]

var BN = {
foo: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
z: function() {
alert("hello world");
},

Variable names starting with capital letters are usually reserved for
constructors. That last comma is a syntax error.

}

I would like to add a member moo to BN whose definition is

var moo = {"a":"A","b","B"};

Another stray comma, and property names don't need to be quoted in
object literals:

var moo = {a:"A", b:"B"};

How do I do it?

To add a property moo to the object BN:

BN.moo = {...};

 

[gimme_this_gimme_that]

Can you make the assignment withing the braces?

As in

BN = {
// create moo here
}

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Variable names starting with capital letters are usually reserved for
constructors.
ACK

That last comma is a syntax error.

Strictly adhering to the ECMA-262 Ed. 3 grammar, yes. Considering the
Conformance section of ECMA-262 (all editions so far), no.

[...] property names don't need to be quoted in object literals:

Not quite correct.

var moo = {a:"A", b:"B"};

It is only possible to omit the quote characters or apostrophes around
the property name here because `a' and `b' are identifiers.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Can you make the assignment withing the braces?

As in

BN = {
// create moo here
}

var bn = {
moo: ...
};

RTFM.


PointedEars

 

[gimme_this_gimme_that]

Thanks.

 

[Douglas Crockford]

var BN = {
foo: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
z: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
}

I would like to add a member moo to BN whose definition is

var moo = {"a":"A","b","B"};

var BN = {
foo: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
z: function() {
alert("hello world");
},
moo: {"a": "A", "b": "B"}
}

or you could have augmented your original BN:

BN.moo = {"a": "A", "b": "B"};

http://javascript.crockford.com/

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

Strictly adhering to the ECMA-262 Ed. 3 grammar, yes. Considering the
Conformance section of ECMA-262 (all editions so far), no.

One should note, that IE (6) has it's problems with this extra comma. FF
and Opera (and suppose others) not.

Gregor

 

[John G Harris]

RobG wrote:


Strictly adhering to the ECMA-262 Ed. 3 grammar, yes. Considering the
Conformance section of ECMA-262 (all editions so far), no.

<snip>

The Conformance section is there to permit extra features. It's not
there to permit random typing errors. A certain amount of common sense
is assumed, of browser designers as well as of web designers.

John