Question

So I am grabbing this XML data, and parsing it within the success function of this jQuery.ajax call.

var d1 = [];
jQuery.ajax( 
    {   url: ("/charts/quotes/" + name + ".xml"),
        success: function( data )
        {
            var dString; var qString; var d; var q;
            jQuery(data).find("HistoricalQuote").each(
            function () {
                dString = $(this).children("Date").text();
                qString = $(this).children("LastClose").text();
                d = Date.parse(dString);
                q = parseFloat(qString);
                d1.push( [ d, q ] );
                console.log( d1[d1.length-1][0] + ": " + d1[d1.length-1][1] );
                /* ^ First Log ^ */
            } );
            console.log( d1.length );
            for ( var q in d1 )
            {
                console.log(q[0] + ": " + q[1]);
                /* ^ Second Log ^ */
            }
        },
        async: false /*The success function must complete before we continue.*/
    });

Now, that first log is giving me back the data that I expect it to — “d” is a really long integer, that looks like it might be a timestamp, and “q” is a stock quote — a float somewhere around 26.

Here’s the weird thing. Outside of that each loop (“Second Log”) — I get a vastly different set of data. It starts off with:

(Sorry for the line returns… Stack Overflow was doing something odd to it)

0: undefined

1: undefined

2: undefined

3: undefined

4: undefined

5: undefined

6: undefined

7: undefined

8: undefined

9: undefined

…and then goes on to:

1: 0

1: 1

1: 2

…

1: 9

2: 0

…

3: 9

4: 0

Does this have something to do with the way I looped through it the second time? Or the way “push” works? What in the world is going on?

Answer 1

q is actually going to be the index of item in d1, not the value. You would want to do something like:

        for ( var q in d1 )
        {
            console.log(d1[q][0] + ": " + d1[q][1]);
            /* ^ Second Log ^ */
        }

However using a for/in is a bad idea on a numerically indexed array… see the link in heikki’s comment.