Did you know that ...

[Vladdy]

you can find out if your javascript function has been altered using the following code:

function somefunction()
{ a=b+1;
c=a-b;
}

somefunctionLength = (new String(window.somefunction)).length

So now you can mess with someone who decides to modify your code without asking you first by doing things like:
if(somefunctionLength!=123) document.body.innerHTML='mua-ha-ha';
:thumbsup:

[brothercake]

Originally posted by Vladdy
document.body.innerHTML='mua-ha-ha';
:thumbsup:

:D lol

[joh6nn]

i always thought an interesting function, somewhat related, would be a bookmarklet that did something like this:


for (i in self) {
if (typeof self[i] == "function") {
if ((self[i].indexOf('status') >=0) || (self[i].indexOf('setTimeout') >=0)) {
if (confirm(self[i]+"\n\nEnd this function?") {self[i] = null;}
}
}
}

checks to see if a function uses setTimeout or modifies the status-bar (status bar scroller), displays its contents, and asks if you want to allow it to continue. i've never tested it, just an idea i've had for a while. assuming it works, it could conceivably be modified to take out all kinds of annoying things, like mouse trails, etc.

[brothercake]

Originally posted by joh6nn
assuming it works, it could conceivably be modified to take out all kinds of annoying things

What I'd like to know is a way of nullifying selective bits of javascript through void commands in the address bar ...

Want to link to a page you like but irritated by its pop-ups? No worries - just void the window code as part of the URI ;)

Possible? Don't know.

[joh6nn]

don't think it's doable. i spent a couple of minutes trying to come up with something, but there doesn't seem to be any good way to do it

[Borgtex]

Originally posted by Vladdy
So now you can mess with someone who decides to modify your code without asking you first by doing things like:
if(somefunctionLength!=123) document.body.innerHTML='mua-ha-ha';
:thumbsup:

well..., that someone only needs to modify another line ;)

//if(somefunctionLength!=123) document.body.innerHTML='mua-ha-ha';

but it's interesting :)

[Vladdy]

Those who can read and understand someone elses scripts are few and far in between and in most cases they do not have to rip scripts - they can write better themselves.
The majority of cut-n-pasters can not figure out why the two scripts do not work together when a reason as simple as repeating variable. This is the type you can have the most fun with <evil grin />

[cg9com]

Originally posted by Vladdy
The majority of cut-n-pasters can not figure out why the two scripts do not work together when a reason as simple as repeating variable. This is the type you can have the most fun with <evil grin />
your bad, and so right.

[Jerome]

I am always very interested in the functions, ideas and solutions the forum people produce.

This one is most interesting as well, however, after implementing it I have a question:


a=b+1
c=a-b

Then: c=a-b gives:

c=a-b => -a=-c-b => a=c+b

together with: a=b+1 gives:

c+b=b+1 => c=b-b+1 => c=1

Then: a=b+1 gives:

a is always one more then b

Asigning a,b,c with a=b+1 and c=a-b can give:

a=3, b=2, c= always 1

3=2+1 and 1=3-2

However, also:

a=1000, b=999, c= always 1

1000=999+1 and 1=1000-999


Please correct me if I am wrong!!!

Or was this check a regular check if the forum readers understand it, LOL

Jerome

[joh6nn]

i think Vladdy was just filling the function with arbitrary nonsense code, to help demonstrate his point about examining the length of a function.

[Jerome]

My mistake!!

I was in a rather serious mood...

But agree with the point: do something - unexpected - in or around your code.

Jerome