However, if remove() is adequately documented in the jQuery API (as it seems to be), then there should really be no confusion with comparing it to removeChild()... Deprecation and aliasing is a quick path to API bloat, IMO.
- Gavin On Feb 26, 2:00 pm, Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> wrote: > Renaming doesn't have to be done without backwards compatibility. Just > alias the old .remove to the .destory and @deprecate .remove for new > code so people don't get bitten anymore while old code still works. > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://nadir-seen-fire.com] > -Nadir-Point & Wiki-Tools (http://nadir-point.com) (http://wiki-tools.com) > -MonkeyScript (http://monkeyscript.org) > -Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com) > -Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com) > -Soul Eater Wiki (http://souleater.wikia.com) > > John Resig wrote: > >> what I was trying to get flying was the idea of renaming of `.remove() > >> ` to `.destroy()`, to remove the last trace of confusion > >> with .removeChild() > > >> Does anybody have an opinion on that? > > > That's not happening. That will change a critical method of the jQuery > > API - breaking thousands of jQuery sites. > > > --John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
