Found in old code

[ZurdoDev]

phil.o wrote:

Why making things simple when you can over-complicate them?

Because we are men, not women. :doh:

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[BillW33]

Well that will work, but it is another example of why I have the sig that I do. ;)

Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.

[Bernhard Hiller]

Nice find. But what will happen when attributeVal is null?

[Sanjay K Gupta]

Then run time error would occur. :) Actually null value is not a problem. The problem is, the style of assigning a string variable value to another variable. :)

___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /

[Mohibur Rashid]

How does it differ from JQuery?

I do not fear of failure. I fear of giving up out of frustration.

[Kyle Moyer]

It's Javascript. You probably end up with fieldName == "undefine"... :rolleyes:

[F ES Sitecore]

Maybe the author wants the original string left unchanged? It is no longer an attribute value but now a fieldname so it makes sense to use a different variable? Have to admit, I don't really get this one :confused:

[Sanjay K Gupta]

Good catch. But there is nothing in code to keep string left unchanged.:) It was simple assignment. I think, first author had extract multiple values from the string but after some changes, the string was started giving single value. The second author may be don't want to change too much in code (specially substring function).:)

___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /

[PIEBALDconsult]

That allows for an easy performance improvement with V2.0 :-D

[Xmen Real]

What if he didn't want the original string reference ? not a bad way to clone

TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L %^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2 W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN% R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-i’TV.C\y<pŠjxsg-b$f4ia>

----------------------------------------------- 128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can

[Sanjay K Gupta]

A real example of Weird and The Wonderful. :)

___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /

[szukuro]

Not sure I see the issue here. This is the easiest way to remove the last character from a string.

[Rob Grainger]

Casual sexism alert.

"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.

[Ryan Peden]

Well, substring omits the character at the index specified by the second parameter, so the code you listed will return attributeVal with its final character removed. Maybe that's not what this code should be doing in this case, but what you showed isn't obviously incorrect. It's exactly the code you'd want to use to remove the last character of a string, although

attributeVal.slice(0,-1)

would work in this case too. OTOH,

var fieldName = attributeVal.substring(0, attributeVal.length);

would be pointless, as it would just return attributeVal

[Lost User]

Sanjay K. Gupta wrote:

It is javascript. :)

You don't say!

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

[Jeremy Falcon]

That made my day. :laugh: :laugh:

Jeremy Falcon

[Jeremy Falcon]

That only applies to objects. For instance...

var a = 'howdy';
var b = a;
a = 'partner';
alert(b); // shows howdy

var x = {message: 'howdy'};
var y = x;
x.message = 'partner';
alert(y.message); // shows partner

And even if that was the coder's intent, it would still be way more readable to do something like this...

var a = 'blah';
var b = new String(a);
a = 'yo';
alert(b); // shows blah

Jeremy Falcon