Nidiffer: Hey Biddlecome, sorry for highlighting you, could you pls msg me once you come available? I just need to ask something simple and short which I think you might have the answer for, thanks :
Nagelschmidt: I guess this question is much easier. https://jsfiddle.net/pgdooxuh/
Cobbs: Coudnt get it working . can you guys please check?
Leverson: Vinex08, did you check the console?
Splatt: Vinex which browser are you using?
Splatt: They all work for me bar the age one
Hazell: Firefox. i want to change the validity error
Steinberg: Right now its saying, ‘select an item in the list’
Leverson: Vinex08, but did you check the console?
Leverson: Firefox has a console too
Leverson: It is the very first thing to do, check for errors
Pitzen: ES6 can’t import into an object property? e.g. import menu’file’ from ‘file.js’;
Splatt: Vinex i have the solution :
Rogowicz: Havvy: is there something that makes this a bad idea for the spec to support?
Leverson: S34n, imports are static
Santaniello: Is says ‘Uncaught ReferenceError: $ is not defined’
Olthoff: Leverson: what does that mean?
Leverson: S34n, read here http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_modules.html
Leverson: S34n, 17.4.2 Static module structure
Leverson: Vinex08, so what does that mean?
Gerosa: S34n: ES6 modules are *intentionally limited* to allow static ****ysis and separate compilation/linking.
Lauckner: S34n: so, they’re special thingies, just like try/catch and for are special thingies.
Ownby: Meaning i dont have my jquery loaded! ahah
Splatt: Vinex i broke it, i cant get it to validate after selecting it :/
Tiede: Splatt: http://jsfiddle.net/vinex08/sf33z88e/3/ this is what i have so far .
Kogel: Tho the code isnt that optimised . i guess this will do for now
Verd: Aight, I think I’m on top of this inheritence business now. One question though. Say you have B extending A, you have to set B.prototype.constructor = B, right? Why don’t you have to do the same for A? Or any other random constructor function you define? How does it know what A.prototype.constructor is? Or do all the JS engines just magic that in the background as soon as you set the first property on A.prototype?
Galarita: BigJono: Because that’s a default when you create a function.
Mcclair: Var f = function {}; f === f.prototype.constructor
Rickman: You don’t have to actually set it up if you break it. Nobody should be relying on it anyways. ;
Milhouse: Ah ok, that’s surprising
Pesante: It’s a very arbitrary thing.
Ornelaz: A lot of code breaks it
Soliz: Yeah, I mean most functions wouldn’t be constructors would they?
Mcclaran: BigJono: all functions are technically constructors
Lindert: But it’s impossible to know which function is a constructor because
Konopacki: Havvy: When you call a function with new, the this binding is set to a new object that has as its prototype ThatFunction.prototype, and if the function does not return an object, the result is that object. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new
Biddle: Well, not all functions now that we’ve got arrow functions. But they’re the only exception
Galvan: Ahhhhh I understand why you have to set it now. So when you do something like B.prototype = Object.createA.prototype, the default is obviously removed when you redefine what B.prototype points to, right?
Splatt: Vinex: no need for both functions you can use jquery selector to grab both input and selector var intputElements = $”INPUT SELECT”;
Devreese: BigJono: you don’t *have* to set it. Nothing at all anywhere in the language cares about .constructor
Reisch: You can still set it, but it has as much of an effect as setting any other arbitrary property