jslint

I use JSLint all the time, but just today, I came across an error that I've never seen before. With the following code, I got the error shown below: try { document.execCommand('BackgroundImageCache', false, true); } catch (ex) {} Error: Expected 'ignore' and instead saw 'ex'. } catch (ex) {} So I changed my code to the following, and the error went away: try { document.execCommand('BackgroundImageCache', false, true); } catch (ignore) {} I can't find any explanation on the Internet regarding why this would fix the error. Does anyone know what's up or why this fixed the problem? Thank you.

i am getting the following error Parse error: Unexpected token operator «=», expected punc «,» Line 159, column 26 This is my code function fitBounds(type="all", shape=null) { var bounds = new google.maps.LatLngBounds(); if ( type == "all" ){ if ((circles.length > 0) | (polygons.length > 0)){ $.each(circles, function(index, circle){ bounds.union(circle.getBounds()); }); $.each(polygons, function(index, polygon){ polygon.getPath().getArray().forEach(function(latLng){ bounds.extend(latLng); }); }); } } else if ( (type == "single") && (shape != null) ) { if (shape.type == google.maps.drawing

Possible Duplicate: What good is JSLint if jQuery fails the validation http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.4.js Go to there and paste it in www.jslint.com Isn't Jquery supposed to be valid.... It's far too much work to comply with it AND be cross-browser compliant. JSLint is useful but its only a generic parser. jQuery has good reasons to throw errors in it. Sometimes you just need simple dirty hacks to get code working in non-compliant browsers. let's look at them one by one : Problem at line 231 character 20: Expected '===' and instead saw '=='. return num == null ? Here jquery uses == on null

I have js lint installed in Vs 2010 as a extension through the extension manager. It finds lots of errors but they are all from external plugins or from the jquery library. I am not going to go and fix stuff in an external plugin or jquery file. So how can I get it to not check these files? I am also wondering how can I get it to ignore checking href links. I am using asp.net mvc so my links are like this <a href="/account/reg">reg </a> So it can't find this path as it is the path to the controller action method not a file. So how can I get it to not look at these? Thanks You can exclude files

I'm working on a webapp to teach programming concepts. Webpages have some text about a programming concept, then let the user type in javascript code into a text editor window to try to answer a programming problem. When the user clicks "submit", I analyse the text they've typed to see if they have solved the problem. For example, I ask them to "write a function named f that adds three to its argument". Here's what I'm doing to analyse the user's text: Run JSLint on the text with strict settings, in particular without assuming browser or console functions. If there are any errors, show the

I have a line of code that gets the following error when run through JSLint: Lint at line 604 character 48: Insecure '^'. numExp = parseInt(val[1].replace(/[^\-+\d]/g, ""), 10); This error seems to refer to the following description from JSLint's option page: "true if . and [^...] should not be allowed in RegExp literals. These forms should not be used when validating in secure applications." I don't quite understand how a client-side javascript application can really be considered secure. Even with the most airtight regex, it's still possible to fire up something like firebug and change the

I have a huge script that passes JSLint (including avoidance of all bad parts). Except for one stretch, which is some very convoluted obfuscated code that is embedded within the larger context. JSLint generates quite a bit of complaints for this section, and I'd like to selectively disable it for that stretch of code. I already do use selective /*jlsint xxx:true/false*/ directives to disable particular warnings for certain tiny stretches of code that do things contrary to the struct interpretation. The obfuscated code I have uses constructs that I don't know if they can be disabled. For