If the all name is still around then it is ok, it's just sometimes in
the past changes where made that would not support earlier ways of
doing thing which lead to plugins no longer working. If it's more an
alias that is created than I am up for it.
I like Daniel's idea of event(), couldn't make more sense than that
really :)
On Jul 20, 11:03 am, Már <mar.orlygs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
>
> I think as `Function.prototype.bind` becomes more mainstream (years
> from now) this will indeed become common cause of confusuion for
> jQuery newcomers.
>
> However, all mature libraries are bound have their share of
> idiosyncratic/lame-duck legacy naming baggage to confuse newcomers.
>
> jQuery has a couple or so already:
> * `$.fn.load()` has fundamentally different semantics depending on
> the arguments you feed it.
> * `$.fn.remove()` is not a normal `removeChild()`, but actually a
> "destroy" method.
> * etc.
>
> ...and it's very difficult to avoid these sort of things completely -
> without either A) clean restart (breaking backwards compatibility) -
> or B) building up a large stack of depricated method names that lie
> "hidden"/forgotten only to spring on unsuspecting developers when they
> least need to have to deal with cryptic bugs in their code.
>
> Design is damn hard.
> ;-)
>
> --
> Már
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
