I think this is where namespacing comes into play. We don't really want to conflict with other libraries again. I think the internal stucture should be:
jQuery.array[method] jQuery.string[method] jQuery.number[method] jQuery.date[method] Then we can provide shortcuts (making sure we don't overwrite anything) like $A, $S, $N and $D respectively. This is something I've been thinking about doing also and would be a nice extension for jQuery users. -- Brandon Aaron On 11/14/06, Paul Bakaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I recently had the wish for extended functions on arrays, hashs and objects > like Prototype provides with extending the Array() object. I often used > features like without() and truncate(). I am really thinking of > rewriting/porting a lot of stuff for jQuery and call it "jQuery Methods", > but I have still thoughts going on about the right implementation. > > My myself, I personally don't really enjoy extending javascripts internal > array object, because you can't use things like (for n in somearray){} > anymore without a second check. > One possibility would be to provide something like $M, and to stuff the > jQuery way like this. > > var myArray = [1,2,5,3,4,5]; > var myArrayWithout5 = $M(myArray).without(5); > > Of course it's not as short as myArray.without(5). > > Tell my your opinions and ideas, I'm looking forward for it! > > -- > Paul Bakaus > Web Developer > ------------------------ > Hildastr. 35 > 79102 Freiburg > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/