I'm not using a Javascript Object correctly

[RadarBob]

Below is a code extract with a problem. I guess I'm just not thinking rightly about JS objects.

I get the following error message:
'x[...].text' is null or not an object

There is a single OPTION with a value in the TEXT property that is NOT null. So it's "not an object"??

The error msg is pointing to the for() statement below


function InsertNewKeyword(theform) {
// "theform" contains a SELECT object named "newList"

x = theform.newList.options;

for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
debugstring += "\t Text[" + i + "] = " + x[i].text + "\r";
}
alert (debugstring);

[x_goose_x]

You can't add to a string (+=) if it doesn't exist. Try putting:

debugstring = "";

before the loop.

Also:

x = document.formname.selectname

to get the value of an option:

tmp = x[2].text

[RadarBob]

Originally posted by x_goose_x
[B]You can't add to a string (+=) if it doesn't exist

var debugstring = new String ("") --> was done earlier in the function; not shown.


x = document.formname.selectname

to get the value of an option:

tmp = x[2].text


Why?

The following code inside the function displays the proper value with no errors (just prior to getting the the for() statement wherein the error is flagged):

alert (x[0].text)

[adios]

for ( var i=0; i<x.length; i++) {

...or

for ( var i=0; i<= (x.length-1); i++) { //pointless but OK

[RadarBob]

It's consistant with the style of the pre-existing code.


"Focus."
-- Mr. Miaggi

[whammy]

I agree with adios... why make it more confusing?

To heck with "being consistent with the style of the previous code", unless there's a specific reason you want to put in unnecessary stuff. ;)

Of course it works, but it just puts a couple of extra steps in to do the same thing...

As for your other question... can you post the whole script? :)

[TrueLies]

Hi

uhm, this loop:

for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
}

should never start... you shouldn't even get the error.

i=0

go on as long as i is > or equals x.length-1

never starts: i is not > since the beginning

the correct form is:

for(var i=0; i<x.length; i++){

}

So before getting deeper in this: hey, how's possible that loop starts??
Try this:

var x=new Array(1,2,3)
for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
alert(x[i])
}

never starts.
Now, try this dire one:

var x=new Array()
for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
if(!confirm(x[i])){break;}
}

it starts and NEVER stops. In fact: array has length=0, so:

i=0
i>=length-1 (length-1= ... -1)

so i is > length: the loop starts.
It now increments by 1
i++=1
still higher than length

i++=2
still higher then length

i++=3
still higher than length

...goes on infinitely

In simplier words, whatever the problem, first thing I really suggest to fix is the way that loop is designed, then refer to what x_goose_x wrote. You' ll see it works.
ciao!

[whammy]

post deleted by whammy ;)

[adios]

adios:

for ( var i=0; i<x.length; i++) {

TrueLies:

the correct form is:
for(var i=0; i<x.length; i++){

}


Thanks for clearing that up.

uhm, this loop:
for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
}

should never start... you shouldn't even get the error.


So if x.length=1 - as it does with one OPTION - x.length-1 will never equal zero? Interesting. The conditional, of course, is backwards, so x[i].text, on the second iteration, will evaluate to x[1].text - which doesn't exist. It's a simple runtime error. Tell me what I missed, whammy....:confused:

[whammy]

Nothing... LOL!

Geez... I look at code all day - and I guess I get a bit burned out on it at times (and I always miss the simple math stuff when I didn't do it ;) )... *doh*

[TrueLies]

Adios hey how comes you felt called in by *me*? I mean, what's your problem that you take the initiative to quote me directly for matters of no importance?

I was replying to whammy *obviously*. I mean that a post like yours saying:

----quote

adios:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for ( var i=0; i<x.length; i++) {
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TrueLies:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the correct form is:
for(var i=0; i<x.length; i++){

}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clearing that up.
----unquote


Is a typical, *remarkable* example of a *gratuitously provocative* post (stress on gratuitous). I was replying to whammy, correct? Can't I stress my point when we get a request of help, even if it replicates a couple of lines of already said things, in order to add something new to the thread?:

--quote
Now, try this dire one:

var x=new Array()
for ( var i=0; i>= (x.length-1); i++) {
if(!confirm(x[i])){break;}
}
--unquote

It is obvious that you can have an x object whose length is 1: who doubted it? you can have objects whose length is whichever number: indeed, not a good reason to reccomend that type of loop LOL! - but here we agree (arguably).

What I don't understand is: everybody has a track here, and I never found that yours was the track of a person who is not helpful: I always respected you, never addressed you rejecting the opportunity of your replies to members, never sent a rebuttal quoting you, and certainly I wasn't prowling for an occasion: I don't have hidden agendas.

I'm surprised that you got the idea I'm a person who can be mocked at by you gratuitously and without any provocation.

For me the matter is already over, but I wonder what we can do if one sends a helpful reply and can even get a rebuttal by folks who sent their replies three posts before and none the less argue the reply was meant for *them*, even without addressing them *at all*!

Mah.
ciao

[RadarBob]

The Final Solution...

The for loop was the problem. Here's what I coded:

for (var i=0; i >=(x.length-1); i++) {...}



Here's what worked:

for (var i=0; i <=(x.length-1); i++) {...}


My interpretation of what happened: The loop did in fact execute (since the "=" was there). However, "i" was not initialized properly for whatever reason, thus "x[i]" was not "built" and therefore was "null". x[0] did have a value, I could see it on some debugging output prior to the loop. I also think the loop actually executed because when I took out the "x[i]" reference, I did not get that original error message and I was apparently stuck in an infinite loop.

BTW I'm running on Win 98, IE 5.5