This fix worked great.
So how do we go about raising a bug for this so it gets fixed in the
next release?
As I mentioned I have more than a little trouble trying to raise it
myself.
Cheers
Anthony
On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (function(oldVal) {
> $.fn.val = function(value) {
> if ( arguments.length )
> return oldVal.call( this, value === undefined || value ===
> null ? "" : value );
> else
> return oldVal.call( this );
> };
>
> })($.fn.val);
>
> The best way to proxy a function to an old one is using an anonymous
> function. It's the most reliable way to make sure that any proxying
> someone else does doesn't cause your proxy to break.
>
> The real thing you want to test is the length of the arguments.
>
> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> vdhant wrote:
> > I was thinking of something a little more simple. I don't mind doing
> > this in the shorter time but for the here and now I was wondering how
> > I would write an in code dynamic patch.
>
> > As in would I do something like the following:
>
> > //This being code I add to my page
> > jQuery.fn = jQuery.prototype = {
> > baseval: jQuery.prototype.val,
> > val: function(value) {
> > this.basedval(value || '');
> > }
> > };
>
> > Like I know the above doesn't quite work but is there some way that I
> > could archive this?
> > Cheers
> > Anthony
>
> > On Jun 17, 1:39 pm, David Zhou <da...@nodnod.net> wrote:
>
> >> Checkout the jQuery svn repo, make your changes and generate a diff.
>
> >> -- dz
>
> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:34 PM, vdhant <vdh....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Hey guys
> >>> In the meantime how could I go about creating my own patch that fixes
> >>> this issue???
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Anthony
>
> >>> On Jun 17, 1:11 pm, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Hmmm? Clarifying, has $(el).css('width', undefined).someOtherFnMethod();
> >>>> been fixed?
>
> >>>> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> >>>> John Resig wrote:
>
> >>>>>> It's always a good idea to either use a ||'' or cast your data to a
>
> >>> string or other proper datatype when using jQuery, a large number of the
> >>> methods will have somewhat undesirable results if you try using null or
> >>> undefined, it's a known issue.
>
> >>>>> Oh, I wouldn't go that far. We've patched any null/undefined issues
> >>>>> that we've found. I'm not aware of any outstanding issues (save for
> >>>>> the one mentioned in this thread). Pointers to any others would be
> >>>>> appreciated.
>
> >>>>> vdhant: You should file a bug with this point in it:
> >>>>>http://dev.jquery.com/newticket
>
> >>>>> --John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
