I don't think anyone else has answered this, so I'll give it a go.
You said, in part:
> In my way of thinking I prefer to use (this.someFunc1) within
> someFunc2 instead of (obj.someFunc1) however that does not work. It
> makes sense to me why it does not work, since (this) is tied to the
> calling object ...
You're saying this as though you've tried it and it doesn't work. Is this
correct?
The reason I ask is that I just tried it and it DOES work for me.
Note that your statement
> ( this.someVar1 = "Value" ) ? this.someVar3 = "new value"; :
> this.someVar3 = "new value";;
is incorrect. The first = should have been an equality test - i.e. two
equals signs. Perhaps this caused confusion. Additionally, your "then" and
"else" parts are the same, so it doesn't tell you much.
Anyway, I've put together a little page that does what I'd expect it to do
in IE.
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2//en">
<html>
<head>
<title>(Type a title for your page here)</title>
<meta name=";GENERATOR" content="Arachnophilia 4.0">
<meta name=";FORMATTER" content="Arachnophilia 4.0">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text=";#000000" link=";#0000ff" vlink="#800080"
alink="#ff0000">;
<script>
obj = {
someVar1: "Value1",
someVar2: "Value2",
someFunc1: function ()
{
this.someVar1 == "Value1" ? this.someVar3 = "new value
true" : this.someVar3 = "new value false";;
},
someFunc2: function (doWhat)
{
if (doWhat == 1)
{
this.someFunc1 ();
this.someVar1 = "new1";
this.someVar2 = "new2";
}
alert (this.someVar1 + "/" + this.someVar2 + "/" +
this.someVar3);
}
}
</script>
<form>
<input type=";button" value="set" onclick="obj.someFunc2 (1)">
</form>
<form>
<input type=";button" value="show"; onclick="obj.someFunc2 (2)">
</form>
</body>
<;/html>
The "set" button calls this.someFunc1 to create this.someVar3 and put one of
two new values into it. Then someFunc2 changes this.someVar1 and
this.someVar2 as well. (Notice that "this" notation is used throughout.)
The "show" button displays the three variables without changing anything.
This button is in a different form to show that "this" wasn't referring to
the first form during the "set" calls.
You won't find that "this" is tied to the calling object in this situation.
In fact, I don't think it ever is.
You will, of course, often find things like onclick="myFunction (this)".
What this does is to grab the value of "this" at the time of the onclick
(where it is whichever object contains the onclick clause) and pass it to
the function as a parameter. Inside the function, "this" is the object
owning the function, and the parameter gives a reference back to the clicked
object.
(I forget what the "this" of a function defined at the outside "script"
level refers to. But it's not the caller.)
Hope this isn't too obscure. 
Regards, Dave S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Perez"; < irperez%40yahoo.com">irperez
yahoo.com>
To: < JavaScript_Official%40yahoogroups.com">JavaScript_Officialyahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:16 AM
Subject: [JavaScript] Call back function/event
> Hello everyone,
>
> Lurkers first post.
>
> I've been googling around trying to find how to address, or if it's
>; possible, an issue I am having. Here's some rough code:
>
> <code>
> obj = {
> someVar1:"value",
> someVar2:"value",
> someFunc1:function(){
> // code
>; ( this.someVar1 = "Value" ) ? this.someVar3 = "new value"; :
> this.someVar3 = "new value";;
> },
> someFunc2:function(){
> // code
>; obj.someFunc1(); // <-- Here
>; }
> }
> </code>
>
> someFunc2 is tied to an event, mouseclick, hover, or what have you.
>; In my way of thinking I prefer to use (this.someFunc1) within
> someFunc2 instead of (obj.someFunc1) however that does not work. It
> makes sense to me why it does not work, since (this) is tied to the
> calling object (Correct me if I am wrong) and not this (obj). So my
> question is; Is there a way for me use (this), or some reference other
> than the explicit (obj)? My reason for doing so is just so that
>; should I or a future maintainer decide to change the name of the
> object or break it or whatever, there is no need to go in an rename
> things in potentially many places thus introducing potential problems.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Visit http://aiaiai.com for more groups to joinYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
.
