| Summary: | The order of objects in an array are not sequential - Moz, FF, IE, Opera are okay | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] konqueror | Reporter: | Charles Phoenix <phoenixreads> |
| Component: | kjs | Assignee: | Konqueror Developers <konq-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
So, if you do: arr['cherry'] = 1; arr['apple'] = 1; arr['banana'] = 1; for (i in arr) document.write(i + ' '); The output will not necessarily be "cherry apple banana"? If that is the case, unless the ECMA standard makes this contract, I don't see why the order should be kept. Alphabetic might be expected, but, again, unless mandated by the standard, there is no reason to. The internal representation is probably a hashing-table, whose iteration order is not guaranteed. In fact, we can relate to: arr[2] = 1; arr[0] = 1; arr[1] = 1; for (i in arr) document.write(i); The output will probably not be "201". See bug #28474, I think this is a dupe Granted it is not "official" behavior but it is "unofficial" behavior. It comes down to a design choice. Something to add to the learning... do not program based on *any* assumptions. Thank you. And yes you can mark this as dupe. Reopening to mark as duplicate. |
Version: 3.4.0 (using KDE 3.4.0, Gentoo) Compiler: gcc version 3.3.5-20050130 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.5.20050130-r1, ssp-3.3.5.20050130-1, pie-8.7.7.1) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.6.11-gentoo-r6 This is part of a large program... experimentation with rollovers and slideshows. The functions in question... JS_FADE.addImage = function(imgName, img, caption) { JS_FADE.gallery[imgName] = new Image(); JS_FADE.gallery[imgName].src = img; JS_FADE.gallery[imgName].caption = caption; JS_FADE.gallery[imgName].imgName = imgName; JS_FADE.cycleListUpdate = false; } JS_FADE.updateCycleList = function() { var i; var j = 0; for (i in JS_FADE.gallery) { JS_FADE.cycleList[j] = JS_FADE.gallery[i].imgName; j++; } JS_FADE.cycleListUpdate = true; } and then JS_FADE.gallery is referenced newImgName = JS_FADE.cycleList[JS_FADE.cycleIndex]; JS_FADE.fadeInImage(JS_FADE.gallery[newImgName].imgName); I presume I am making a few mistakes in style, but it works in the other browser and sequential order is maintained. The first function is called externally like so... JS_FADE.addImage ('apple', "images/apple.jpg", "This is an apple."); JS_FADE.addImage ('banana', "images/banana.jpg", "This is a banana."); JS_FADE.addImage ('cherries', "images/cherries.jpg", "These are cherries."); JS_FADE.addImage ('orange', "images/orange.jpg", "This is an orange."); JS_FADE.addImage ('pear', "images/pear.jpg", "This is a pear."); JS_FADE.addImage ('pineapple', "images/pineapple.jpg", "This is a pineapple."); JS_FADE.addImage ('prune', "images/prune.jpg", "This is a prune."); JS_FADE.addImage ('strawberry', "images/strawberry.jpg", "This is a strawberry."); thus establishing the sequential order, presumably the behavior is the equivalent of a push on stack command? but... to the order ends up being pear, apple, pineapple, prune, orange, cherries, strawberry, banana I compile from source so some gremlin could have awaken, unknown. If someone wants to chase this I can send them a copy of my work ~300Kbytes. Sidenote, is opacity working? If not I will file another report.