Do you have a link to the discussion? Im just curious to take a peek.
I would think if there is a jQuery specific approach (like using $foo)
it would a little more "upgrade-safe" than something so explicit....
Jacob
Eli Cochran wrote:
That makes sense since we're so jQuery dependent. I was just surprised
to learn that many jQuery developers do it the other way.
- Eli
On Aug 22, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Michelle D'Souza wrote:
I've been using the assumption that everything is a jQuery unless
specified. So:
var foo = $("div");
var fooEl = foo[0];
Michelle
On 21-Aug-08, at 2:40 PM, Eli Cochran wrote:
Hi,
There is a little discussion on the jQuery Google Group about using
$ when declaring variables that contain a jQuery object.
So:
var $foo = $("div");
instead of just:
var foo = $("div");
Any opinions.
I have a case, in the scroller, were I have to refer to an element
both as a jQuery object and a DOM object (because jQuery doesn't
support the method that I need) and it would make the code perhaps
clearer... at least to those who know the convention. Perhaps more
confusing to those who don't.
- Eli
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
_______________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle D'Souza
Software Developer, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list
[email protected]
http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
_______________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list
[email protected]
http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
