[JAVASCRIPT] Javascript Serialize

[Twey]

what does the "final" keyword signify?

In Java, it signifies a constant. In Javascript, nothing yet (as far as I know), but the ECMAScript standard defines it as being "reserved for future use."

/EDIT: My error, array_push() wasn't doing what I thought it was. The expected output is actually:

a:1:{i:0;a:1:{i:0;N;}}

[mburt]

but the ECMAScript standard defines it as being "reserved for future use."

So it doesn't initiate the statement right away? I'm really new to the final variable name, so I'm probably wrong.

[shachi]

Seems there're somethings better than my version. http://stephantom2.st.funpic.de/expe...array_test.php

http://magnetiq.com/2006/07/30/php-s...cript-objects/

[Twey]

So it doesn't initiate the statement right away? I'm really new to the final variable name, so I'm probably wrong.

No, it means it doesn't do anything at all, but might do later if Ecma get around to it

[mburt]

Yeah, I've fiddled around with ECMA script a little bit myself, and as far as I know, it works exactly like JavaScript, except with add-ons.

[Twey]

ECMAScript is the standard to which JavaScript, JScript, ActionScript, and a few others conform.

[jscheuer1]

To grasp what is going on with the 'final' keyword or whatever you want to call it in javascript, consider the history of the 'try' keyword. I think that this bit of reserving words is poorly thought out but, in javascript we now have the:

try{

}
catch(e){

}
finally {

}

construct. There was a time when we did not but, in browsers written before this construct became a part of the standard, all legitimate uses of try will cause a script to abort. That is because 'try' was reserved prior to its use in the above construct. They should have just left 'try' out of consideration entirely so that it could be tested for as an available method without causing older browsers to barf. The same (it appears) is true of 'final' except that nothing has been assigned to it yet, making all browsers 'older browsers' when it comes to its use as a variable. Stupid, if you ask me.

[Twey]

... it could be tested for as an available method without causing older browsers to barf.

How?

It's virtually impossible to test for a keyword, since the browsers that do recognise it will barf if it's used as an identifier anyway. About the only way of doing it is using try/catch with eval(), whose exceptions are not always fatal:

try {
  eval("var final;");
} catch(e) {
  // final is reserved (and thus implemented)
}

However, since it's reserved without being implemented in the current state of affairs, we do the test the other way around:

try {
  eval("final myvar;");
} catch(e) {
  // We can't define final variables (so final isn't implemented).
}

[jscheuer1]

I think you just answered your own question. There should be a better way, I agree. Ever since I found out about it, quite some time ago, I've always liked the 'typeof' construct. It should be able to be used in these instances but, as far as I know, it cannot.

Just as a footnote to the problems with 'try' - if you are determined to use it in code that you also want to be able to degrade gracefully to older browsers, there are established but somewhat elaborate and questionable (from the point of view of full future compatibility) ways of doing so. These involve using the archaic language attribute for alternate script blocks as well as filtering IE versions with conditional comments as, IE doesn't respect the language attribute conventions in place during the evolution of the use of 'try'. A real mess, if you ask me. In the end not even 100% but, very near so with existing browsers.

[mburt]

I've always liked the 'typeof' construct

That tells you what type of data (variable name: boolean, integer, string, etc.) in the variable, not the type of keyword. Well, as far as I know.