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/
