Great ideas guys, how about this?
jQuery.fn.extend({
cond: function() {
var i, predicate, callback;
for (i = 0; i < arguments.length; i += 2) {
predicate = arguments[ i ];
callback = arguments[ i + 1 ];
if ( !callback ) {
callback = predicate;
predicate = true;
}
if ( jQuery.isFunction( predicate ) ? predicate.apply( this ) :
predicate ) {
callback.apply( this );
break;
}
}
return this;
}
});
function test() {
return x === 3;
}
jQuery("a")
.cond(
x === 1, function(){
this.css({ color: 'blue' });
},
x === 2, function(){
this.css({ color: 'red' });
},
test, function(){
this.css({ color: 'orange' });
},
function(){
this.css({ color: 'green' });
}
);
On Jun 9, 2:46 pm, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> After several iterations this discussion is nearing its (obvious?)
> conclusion.
> A LISP cond statement . For Lisp-ers COND is a thing of beauty. The
> basic syntax of COND is:
>
> (cond ((predicate1) (then do something 1)) ;if this predicate is
> true,
> ;do something1
>
> ((predicate2) (then do something 2)) ;if this predicate is
> true,
> ;do something2,
> ;each predicate and
> action
> ;following the
> ;first one is optional
>
> (T (else do this)) ;else, if none of the
> ;predicates returns
> ;TRUE, do this
> )
>
> So, please go ahead and implement jQuery.fn.cond()
> What's next? LAMBDA functions as an jQyery plugin ?
>
> Cheers ;o)
>
> --DBJ
>
> On Jun 9, 9:32 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This thread got me thinking, as chaining conditions is something I've
> > found myself wanting to do occasionally when quickly writing jQuery.
> > I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of having the condition affect the
> > current chain, though. I'd prefer something more like the event
> > helper syntax. Here's my contribution:
>
> > jQuery.fn.extend({
> > condition: function() {
> > for (var i=0; i<arguments.length; i=i+2) {
> > if (arguments[i]) {
> > this.condition = (arguments[i+1]) ? arguments[i+1]:
> > arguments[i];
> > this.condition();
> > this.condition = jQuery.fn.condition;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > return this;
> > }
>
> > });
>
> > It allows you to write chainable jQuery conditions thus:
>
> > jQuery("#element").condition(condition, fn)
>
> > The arguments can contain any number of condition / function pairs
> > that act as 'if' and 'else if'. If the final argument is a function
> > with no preceding condition
> > it acts as 'else'. Inside the function 'this' is the current jQuery
> > collection:
>
> > jQuery("#element")
> > .condition( (x===1), function(){
> > this.css({color: 'blue'});
> > }), (x===2), function(){
> > this.css({color: 'red'});
> > }), function(){
> > this.css({color: 'green'});
> > });
>
> > I'm really not sure of the merits of temporarily overwriting the
> > condition method to get 'this' to represent the current collection.
> > That's probably not clever. Certainly it means you can't put one
> > condition inside another. Does anyone know a better way, without
> > having to look for an unused name in the jQuery.fn.x namespace?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
