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["optio n1"].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
<select>
<option id="option1" value="nar">blah
</select>
<script>
refToSelect.options["optio
</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
document.getElementById("o ption1").v alue
<script>
document.getElementById("o ption1").v alue = "hello";
</script>
document.getElementById("o
</script>
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
I guess I could do it using the children collection of select?
Cheers,
Leon
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
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.
ASKER
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....
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.
ASKER
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)
'children' works for sure, anyway, so I'm happy (ish)