Evertjan.
6/4/2014 2:51:00 PM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote on 04 jun 2014 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> Evertjan. wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote on 04 jun 2014 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>
> Will you ever learn?
>
>>>> unless you want a second .document.write()
>>>> to overwrite the document by inducing the implicit .open()
>>>
>>> No, a second document.write() call will send further content to the
>>> same input stream unless it has been closed.
>>
>> It seems reading English is difficult for you, Thomas.
>
> Your statement
>
>>>> this .document.close() is not needed,
>>>> unless you want a second .document.write()
>>>> to overwrite the document by inducing the implicit .open()
>
> is wrong. document.close() is needed here in any case.
> document.write() does not necessarily â??induce the implicit .open()â?.
No, but a prior document.close() does, as I wrote.
> And obviously it makes no sense at all to issue a document.close()
> followed by a document.close().
Perhaps to you, because you did not read correctly.
It is not the point if it makes sense, I described what happens.
Your postings often don't make sense, but thet are sent by you anyway.
However, as the document.close() before a document.write()
induces an implicit document.open(), it can be a way to
clear the window for new html.
Obviously this makes some more sense, perhaps not to you,
when the destination is not the window the script is "on",
but not exclusively so.
> IOW, you have been writing nonsense. So much for understanding English.
The first, quod non, does not imply
that your understanding is that good, quod non,
your "obviously" already hinted at that, Thomas.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)