for loops, setting xml data, length

[Aprime]

I've got 3 movieclips a_1, a_2, a_3

I've got this for loop:

var arr:Array = [a_1,a_2,a_3];
for (var sdt:int= 0; sdt < arr.length; sdt++) {
arr[sdt].pText.htmlText = myText[sdt]["name"];
// and a bunch of other text being set in the array
}

Problem is.... I don't want a_3 to = the 3rd item... I want it to be the last item on the xml. The xml's length.

I know how to do this, but just not with the loop.

Do I have to take it out the loop completely?
Means I've got to paste the whole for loops content for just the a_3 alone.

The XML's length can be referred to as: amountToShow

[milchreis]

No, you just have to branch.

if arr[sdt] is ar_3, then use amountToShow to get the XML, otherwise, use sdt.

I bet you copy & pasted myText[sdt] on every line instead of creating a variable to hold it's value.
If so, create a variable.

[Aprime]

At 2/5/15 01:47 PM, milchreis wrote: No, you just have to branch.

if arr[sdt] is ar_3, then use amountToShow to get the XML, otherwise, use sdt.

How can I set this up without applying all the lines twice?

if(array[sdt]==a_3){
arr[sdt].pText.htmlText = myText[amountToShow]["name"];
} else {
arr[sdt].pText.htmlText = myText[sdt]["name"];
}

Applied twice, kinda...

I bet you copy & pasted myText[sdt] on every line instead of creating a variable to hold it's value.
If so, create a variable.

Not entirely sure what you mean here... you mean it would be more beneficial to have myText[sdt]["name"] as text[0]?

[milchreis]

As a rule of thumb (treat this is as a law): never use anything with [ ] brackets twice.
Instead of using "array[sdt]" twice (or more times) by copy and pasting, create a variable for that.

At 2/5/15 04:49 PM, Aprime wrote: if(array[sdt]==a_3){
arr[sdt].pText.htmlText = myText[amountToShow]["name"];
} else {
arr[sdt].pText.htmlText = myText[sdt]["name"];
}

var target:MovieClip = array[sdt];
var node:XML; //or XMLList, whatever applies to your situation
if (target == a_3)
{
    node = myText[amountToShow];
}
else
{
    node = myText[sdt];
}

target.pText.htmlText = node.name;

You should only need the brackets if you cannot use the dot operator to access the XML property or attribute. that's why I just used .name instead of ["name"]

[egg82]

Generally brackets are used if you're not sure a property exists or will throw an error.
Otherwise the dot operator should be sufficient.

[GeoKureli]

At 2/5/15 05:13 PM, egg82 wrote: Generally brackets are used if you're not sure a property exists or will throw an error.
Otherwise the dot operator should be sufficient.

square bracket has no added safety over the dot operator, if it crashes on one it crashes on the other. the square bracket benefit is that it's runtime vs compile time allowing dynamic access. But in this case, you are right foo["bar"] has should be foo.bar

That being said, I often use square bracket to communicate to other devs the dynamic nature of the container (native objects, movieclips), which you might be referring to.

[egg82]

You're right, kinda. If I'm using reflection I obviously don't want compiler errors saying methods, etc don't exist.
If I have classes that extend classes and I want to pass in the base classes but use the functions of the upper-level classes (or a mix of both classes) then reflection is the way to go.

However, calling a function added on an upper-level class through a base class (that you're not sure exists) will throw compiler errors all over the place. With the dot operator, anyway. With brackets, that's not the case.

[GeoKureli]

At 2/6/15 02:47 AM, egg82 wrote: However, calling a function added on an upper-level class through a base class (that you're not sure exists) will throw compiler errors all over the place. With the dot operator, anyway. With brackets, that's not the case.

that's true if the variable is typed to base class, but sheesh, do an upcast for the sake of readability. if i saw: myPoint["thing_in_point_extender"] I might throw up.

[egg82]

At 2/6/15 02:53 AM, GeoKureli wrote: that's true if the variable is typed to base class, but sheesh, do an upcast for the sake of readability. if i saw: myPoint["thing_in_point_extender"] I might throw up.

There's other classes that could be made that can extend this base class that I'm not aware of, plus it's a waste to upcast when all you're looking for is a function.

Obviously the situation is a little unique, but even the "wasting mem and cycles" might be enough to deter some people.

Reflection is always hackish, it's mostly just "what's the least shit way to do this?"

[Aprime]

Hmm this is good to know. Still though... means I have to type it out twice. Which kinda sucks.

Thanks for teh help peoples

Edit: Especially milchreis

[milchreis]

At 2/6/15 05:26 AM, Aprime wrote: Hmm this is good to know. Still though... means I have to type it out twice. Which kinda sucks.

No you don't.

As you can see, reading the name property happens outside any if/else block.
Just add the rest of your lines the way I did with the "name" line, using "target" as what should be modified and "node" as where the information should come from.

Know what I mean?

@Egg82:
Property names can include operators and other things that would not work with the dot operator, that's when the brackets are necessary. (to escape whatever there is in the property)

When rtfm one finds this example:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/operators.html#brackets_%28XML%29

trace(myXML["foo-bar"]);

That's the simple reason, no reflection or questionable dynamicness or whatever. ;)

[Aprime]

At 2/6/15 12:15 PM, milchreis wrote: As you can see, reading the name property happens outside any if/else block.
Just add the rest of your lines the way I did with the "name" line, using "target" as what should be modified and "node" as where the information should come from.

Know what I mean?

Hmm yeah, I think I've got it now.
Do I not need to put it back in the for loop otherwise that if statement will only display once.

Also in regards to

var node:XML;

I can call node whatever I want. But how do I know exactly what to name "XML"?

Edit:

Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot convert Object@2b575479 to XML.

[milchreis]

At 2/6/15 12:50 PM, Aprime wrote: Also in regards to

var node:XML;

I can call node whatever I want. But how do I know exactly what to name "XML"?

Edit:

Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot convert Object@2b575479 to XML.

It depends on what "myText" is. you mentioned xml in the title so I assumed it is an XML object.
So what is myText? Where do you define it?

[Aprime]

At 2/6/15 01:30 PM, milchreis wrote: It depends on what "myText" is. you mentioned xml in the title so I assumed it is an XML object.
So what is myText? Where do you define it?

It's inside the XML.

<myText>
name|Aprime|website|Newgrounds
</myText>
<myText>
name|milchreis|website|Newgrounds
</myText>

[milchreis]

At 2/9/15 04:58 AM, Aprime wrote:

At 2/6/15 01:30 PM, milchreis wrote: It depends on what "myText" is. you mentioned xml in the title so I assumed it is an XML object.
So what is myText? Where do you define it?

It's inside the XML.

<myText>
name|Aprime|website|Newgrounds
</myText>
<myText>
name|milchreis|website|Newgrounds
</myText>

Provide the real XML and not some derived example like this one. Or is this your real xml file? (it's not even valid)
Provide the code that loads and parses the XML file .

[Aprime]

At 2/12/15 12:44 PM, milchreis wrote: Provide the code that loads and parses the XML file .

It's okay. I've fixed it now. Thank you :)