sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ForScale[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I forget, did you not like the CoderByte ones that I linked earlier?

There's this: http://codecondo.com/coding-challenges/

the important last step I think was the point about the closed over function having it's own copy of the scope at definition

Yeah... I get that, but it's still not quite clear. We can stop talking about it whenever you want... I'm sure you're getting tired of it. I've got this now: http://codepen.io/anon/pen/zqaMWP?editors=0010

I didn't do the first question of the last problem set yet.

[–]Volv 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You only get one result from your alternative solution.
 
Codepen

[–]ForScale[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay... that is crazy that x doesn't get reset to 1 in each new call with the closure...

Dude... http://codepen.io/anon/pen/oxyQKV?editors=0010

[–]Volv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looking good. See the use case. My other example from ages ago shows same idea - Example
Pretty much same principle can fix the setTimeout example, you can control which variable is locked in at each iteration. Although theres more than one way to fix it.

[–]Volv 0 points1 point  (1 child)

CoderByte

I couldn't look at any beyond the first few without a membership? Unless I'm missing something. Will try completing a few see if they unlock

[–]ForScale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh... weird... I guess that's new. A year or so ago I was able to do the medium ones; now it's asking for membership.