> > Won't that cause the same problems when used with for-in loops? > > Yes, but only on the object itself and for/in shouldn't be used for > arrays. I don't believe there should be a conflict.
My words for not using for-in. But if the problem can occur on the object again, I don't really see the win here. While I can understand that there are libraries using for-in loops on arrays, I see no reason to not extent the String prototype. It saves you a lot of trouble and is pretty and clean. I think adding this: String.prototype.trim = function() { ... } Is much cleaner then $.trim(...) Iterating over Strings doesn't make much sense, so there is no problem with for-in loops. While we are at it: jQuery doesn't promote usage of "bad code". Take the shadowed XMLHttpRequest: If a library uses that for browser checks, it will give a wrong result. It may not occur as often as for-in loops on arrays, but basically it's the same problem. I have implemented some extensions for String here: http://fuzz.bassistance.de/sandbox/string.js It consists of trim, camelize, startsWith (supports offset), endsWith and some isXXX checks like isAlpha, isUpper, isDigit. -- Jörn Zaefferer http://bassistance.de -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/