StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
15461677
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
1
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2013-03-17T14:11:37.220
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2013-03-17T14:11:37.220
LastEditDate
2017-05-23T11:51:12.363
LastEditorUserId
-1
OwnerUserId
1048572
ParentId
15440175
PostTypeId
2
Score
0
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
<blockquote> var child = new this.childItemType.call(args); </blockquote> No, this indeed tries to use <code>Function.prototype.call</code> as a constructor (as the exception message tells you). However, there is no reason to use <code>call</code> at all: <pre><code>var child = new this.childItemType(arg, arg2, …); </code></pre> <blockquote> First is that I think some sort of 'this' needs to be passed to the call function, and I don't see what it'd be there. </blockquote> Yes, <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/call" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>call</code></a> expects something to be used as the <code>thisArg</code> for the function. Yet, you seem to want <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>apply</code></a> as you have an <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/arguments" rel="nofollow noreferrer">argumens array</a> <code>args</code>. So on what does the constructor get applied on? It's the new instance - just as like the <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>new</code> operator</a> does it. So to mimick it, we would use <pre><code>var child = Object.create(this.childItemType.prototype); this.childItemType.apply(child, args); </code></pre> For solutions that work without <code>Object.create</code> and also check the return type of the constructor, see <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1606797/use-of-apply-with-new-operator-is-this-possible">Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible?</a>.
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. POJavaScript: Creating an object generically from its type and calling its constructor
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. USCommunity
UserOwnerUserId
1. USBergi
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
CommentsPostId
1. COI'm not so fond of the Object.create syntax or its incompatibilities, but the more succinctly asked prior question you point to has some very valuable solutions, better in some senses than the one I just accepted before I saw this. Really both are valid approches. Thanks very much.
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 USenigment

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.