josh, how is that maintaining backwards compatibility? -GTG
On 8/3/07, Josh Nathanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Selectors are staying, the methods are going. > > Ah yes, that's the way to maintain backwards compatibility. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <jquery-en@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:29 PM > Subject: [jQuery] Re: :eq vs :nth? > > > > > > > > --John > > > > On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> quick question... are the :eq() etal... selectors gonna stay? or are > they > >> going to be removed as well. > >> > >> > >> -GTG > >> > >> On 8/3/07, John Resig < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Well, it should be noted that we're remove .lt() .gt() and .eq() in > >> > favor of a new .slice() method, which will be able to produce > >> > identical results (and even better). > >> > > >> > --John > >> > > >> > On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > i agree, but i saw hasClass() in the roadMap for 1.2. > >> > > So, i thought you were adding some convenience methods. So thought > i > >> would > >> > > give my .02 coz, this sometimes had a tendency to increase my code > >> > > and > >> > > decrease legibility with a lot of .lt(var + 1) and .gt(var - 1). > >> > > > >> > > I, in particular don't have a problem with this, coz my version of > >> jquery > >> > > has these methods ;-). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -GTG > >> > > > >> > > On 8/3/07, John Resig < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Probably not since :le(3) is the same thing as :lt(4). > >> > > > > >> > > > --John > >> > > > > >> > > > On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > meantime, is there any possibility to add le() and ge() (for > >> > > > > lesser > >> than > >> > > or > >> > > > > equal to and greater than or equal to). > >> > > > > I am under the assumption it is not already there. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -GTG > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 8/3/07, John Resig < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Huh... I should probably nuke :nth(). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > --John > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On 8/3/07, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > >> > > > > > > They're the same, so you can use whichever you prefer. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From jquery.js: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nth: "m[3]-0==i", > >> > > > > > > eq: "m[3]-0==i", > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --Karl > >> > > > > > > _________________ > >> > > > > > > Karl Swedberg > >> > > > > > > www.englishrules.com > >> > > > > > > www.learningjquery.com > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Matt Penner wrote: > >> > > > > > > I've searched the groups but I can't seem to find any > related > >> talk > >> > > on > >> > > > > this. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What, if any, is the difference between using :eq(n) and > >> :nth(n)? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'd like to know before I start standardizing on one or the > >> other. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > Matt Penner > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
