Subject: DrOz Episode: Slim-Down Breakdown

From: Weight-loss Break Thru <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:01:41 -0700

On an emotional Roller-Coaster bc you cant Slim-Down?
DrOz has just the thing for you. 

This Fat-Buster will have you dropping 1-lb a day. 
DocOz had a viewer try this product, and showed her results on today's episode.

She's down 25-lbs in ONE month w/out working-out.

See what she used and her results here: / http://www.trianglelike.com/fat/zapper/droz.video

Amazing Right?? 

Now You can show up to the 4th of July party in your bikini.

-DocOz Blog
Episode Archive > http://www.trianglelike.com/fat/zapper/droz.video

Hope you enjoyed this DocOZ Wellness Update
to stop further messages write Member Update Systems
at nine one six seven ROAD 177, O a k w o o d, O h i o_45873 or http://www.trianglelike.com/3iht.sjr4

Thanks for your answer. That helps me understand how they both work. I still 
need to understand in what circumstances you'd use the two different approaches 
and what thI tested your first point (compile-time vs. run-time) in Firefox &
 and it seems valid. But your second point about scope seems flawefuIn exactly 
 the same way. It's e "var" declaration the variable "functionTwo" is in scope 
 on the line where it is invoked. But the that variable is not assigned a value 
 until the next line. So when "functionTwo" is invoked its value is still 
undefined. Trying to invoke undefine By the way, the difference isn't only 
that they are parsed at different times. Essentially, your functionOne is 
merely a variable that has an anonymous function assigned to it, whereas
 functionTwo is actually a named function. Call .toString() on both to see 
 the difference. This is significant in some cases where you want to get the
 name of a function programmatically.
56uje465u6rtju65  	
sure what you're getting at here, .toString() seems to return essentially the same
 value (the function definition) for : functionTwo has a name. It shows up in string 
of the function, in the non-standard name property of the function  and in stack
traces and debuggers. It is a useful thing. There are both different. The first
one is a function expression the second one is a function declaration. You can 
read more on the topic he The part of your answer concerning parse time vs. run
time is not correct. In JavaScript, function declarations are not defined during
parse time, but during run time. The process goes like this: Source code is 
parsed -> program is evaluated -> The global execution context is
 initialized -> declaration binding instantiation is performed. During this
  process the function declarations are instantiated (see step 5 of ChapterNote
   also that you can do both! However the named function name will only be 
   available inside the function. See   what about memory usage? Can't the
ar functionName = function style be garbage collected earlier in some 
circumstances? All the example proves is that the function is that fu
nctionOne is given a name on creation of the scope, whereas functionTwo i
sn't given a name until the assignment happens. Yes, that is significant,
but it doesn't prove anything about parse-time vs run-time.The terminolo
for this phenomenon is known as hoisting. The named vs unnamed aspect
functions are inherently difficult to profile, because you get
nonymous function to a variable does not name the function. There is 
no rule preventing you from also naming a function expression i.e. -> 
var x = function myFunctionsNaHowever, I do not know when a
function expression pointing to a named function (instead of an anony
mous one) gets defined (parse-time vs run-time).Looks like a named func
tion expression is still executed @ parse-time (even if it's called by 
the function name instead of the variable name). This answer has nothin
g on Eugene's. And it's quite misleading with the parse-time vs run-tim
e statement. Eugene's answer is more in depth, but without Greg's answe
r it doesn't make sense.Is there any advantage to using var function th
en?  I have never encountered a scenario where it was beneficial to use 
an assignment of a function definition to a variable declaration instead
of a plain old vanilla function declaration. The function declaration
accomplishes everything that the variable declaration technique does
with the added benefit of hoisting and naming (for internal reference
of a function to itself as well as easier debugging). Some of the
developers at my current company like the variable declaration as
an enforcement of declaring before using, but I constantly argue 
 against it since it offers no real value