Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of Astroman
Astroman

asked on

select.options as associative array

I want to access the select.options collection as an associative array, but can't seem to get it to work, e.g.

<select>
<option id="option1" value="nar">blah
</select>
<script>
refToSelect.options["option1"].value= "hello";
</script>

As just about everything in JavaScript is an associative array, I thought this would work, but it doesn't.

Any ideas on how to make it work (and don't tell me to loop through the options and match - thats what I want to avoid).

Leon
Avatar of knightEknight
knightEknight
Flag of United States of America image

document.getElementById("option1").value
<script>
document.getElementById("option1").value = "hello";
</script>
Avatar of Astroman
Astroman

ASKER

I know that strictly that works, but I'd prefer (from a code readability point of view) to reference it via the options, or at least the select object, so it's clear what the code is doing.

I guess I could do it using the children collection of select?

Cheers,

Leon
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of knightEknight
knightEknight
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
I'll leave this a bit longer, but I guess this is the best way. If so, I'll give you the points.  Thanks kek.

Dunno what to do now. Turns out my original post was correct, but my (SS generated) code had the element id as a number, which is wrong and was breaking it.

So the answer is, 'options' is an associative array (as I suspected), and I'm silly.

I'll give you the points, because someone should have them, and at least it got me debuggin it properly....
I see, I thought that it should have worked as you originally described it, but I just assumed not since you had tried it.  Oh well, thanks for the points, and for the exercise.
actually, I'm beginning to feel a complete fool. Having ( I thought) verified that it did actually work, it seems to have stopped working now.  I dunno. type first, think later today.

'children' works for sure, anyway, so I'm happy (ish)