@DanLaff here you can see how I have done it until now.
I can see the calculator is not perfect, but I am just wondering how I can start changing the stuff to jquery, and change up the click events on the buttons
the code pen you sent me makes sense, using a for loop to iterate trough the buttons. That was smart.
But what if you would like to send in a value, for example if the user click on 7, like the way I have done it here.
<button onclick="tall(7)" value="7" class="btn btn-primary" id="seven">7</button>```
If you can alert the value "7", you can use .html() or .text() to update an element's content with that value
You may want to keep things in english if you can - brukerTall = userButton :)
Okey, I am really new to the javascript world and the Jquery world. I don'r really know if he is directly testing if we are using jquery instead of javascript, but I would think so.
Yes, you can try the calculator, that works, but I am wondering how I would do it with a click function instead.
I would then need a lot of click functions, and that would look messy in my opinion. But it would look nice with a for loop as in your example though.
But how could I then pass in the values like, 5, 6, 7 and so on depending on which button the user clicks on. Thanks for your time @DanLaff :)
Yes, you can try the calculator, that works, but I am wondering how I would do it with a click function instead.
I would then need a lot of click functions, and that would look messy in my opinion. But it would look nice with a for loop as in your example though.
But how could I then pass in the values like, 5, 6, 7 and so on depending on which button the user clicks on. Thanks for your time @DanLaff :)
api offline
@KUBIX90 This should work
if(val.stream === null){
$("#" + username).css("box-shadow", "5px 0px 10px red");
$("#" + username + ">p").text("Offline")
.css("color","red");
} else {$("#" + username).css("box-shadow", "5px 0px 10px green");
$("#" + username + ">p").text("Online")
.css("color","green");
}
Easier to select this way without modifying any other parts.
:cookie: 415 | @ezioda004 |http://www.freecodecamp.org/ezioda004
@KUBIX90 It selects all the <p> elements in the #username div https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_selectors.asp
Could be troublesome if you add more <p> elements - but goes to show, there are lots of ways to select an element :)
api offline
api offline
Hi, got a somewhat weird question.
I have a button with and onclick effect, and I'm trying to build up the url of the onclick based on previous button presses, but not really sure how.
Example
<button class=onclick="location.href='https://test.com/{{VARIABLE}}'">
</button>I'd like to set {{VARIABLE}} using javascript (from a previous onclick()), but not exactly sure how I'd do that. I was thinking about putting like a div and then replacing the value using javascript, but I feel that the '' will negate the div.
Okey, I have fixed a little bit more here now.
https://codepen.io/nicolaimagnussen/pen/aEgrrB
So how can I change all this code to click functions instead?
I'm having some troubles with this algorithm challenge. I'm getting 3/5 test cases to evaluate okay, but the ones that say, for example,
addTogether(2)(3) should return 5. aren't passing. I'm guessing that they mean the 3 is the function factory argument that is passed in in the code, but I'm not sure. You can't call a function with two arguments like they are suggesting that I know of. I'm just not quite getting why these don't pass. Any thoughts?
function addTogether(num1, num2) {
var add3 = makeAdder([3]);
var sum;
var number = true;
// Function to test if arguments are numbers
function numTest(args) {
for (var prop in args) {
console.log(args[prop]);
if (typeof args[prop] !== 'number' || Array.isArray(args)) {
number = false;
}
}
}
// 1 argument case
if (arguments.length === 1) {
numTest(arguments);
if (number === false) {
return undefined;
}
return (add3(2));
}
// 2 arguments case
if (arguments.length > 1) {
numTest(arguments);
if (number === false) {
return undefined;
}
sum = num1 + num2;
return sum;
}
// makeAdder function
function makeAdder(x) {
return function(y) {
numTest(x);
if (number === false) {
return undefined;
}
return x + y;
};
}
}
addTogether(2);
if 1, return a function. Your
makeAdder looks right to me without the if statement
If 2, return sum of the two args
You have all the components here already
:cookie: 557 | @kbaig |http://www.freecodecamp.org/kbaig
hey! finally i completed my homepage .Here is my url:https://codepen.io/pragyapriya/pen/mpZZEz?editors=1100
@DanLaff
Thanks Dan, Now I understood what you mean with your code example.
You mean something like this
https://codepen.io/nicolaimagnussen/pen/aEgrrB
I agree with you, this is much better and much cleaner in my opinion as well, thanks for showing me that!! ;)
nicolaimagnussen sends brownie points to @danlaff :sparkles: :thumbsup: :sparkles:
@kbaig The hints suggested to make a function to check for argument numbers. I started out more simply like what you suggested, but it got more complex due to needing to check the argument on the makeAdder function. What you suggested is pretty much what is already there in terms of checking for argument length. I just am not sure why it isn't passing and why the test cases say addTogether(2)(3)... it is choking on both those where there is a function call with multiple arguments. I don't even know why they are suggesting that syntax.
@pragya1248 Nice work! Some design suggestions that could make it more user-friendly:
- It is hard to scan the content since the type is virtually all the same size. Try just using the browser defaults for heading levels (h1, h2, h3, etc.) to get an idea of how those create a flow on their own. You may have to look at your content to see how to arrange it by title, subtitle, etc. This will really help things pop and make it easy to scan to see what the page is about.
- Perhaps look at some templates to get an idea of how to arrange content. Right now everything is 100% wide, which makes it hard to read and scan. If you divide these content areas into smaller width blocks it will be easier to read, and perhaps have a more interesting design.
- Some of the type is hard to read since the background competes with the text. Maybe use some opacity on the images, or change text colors to be more legible.
@Feldbot addTogether(2)(3) should result is addTogether returning a function closed over the value 2 ( basically, makeAdder(2)) then it will call that function with (3)