I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world, jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery, I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what happens to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
"Pascal" here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com>
>
> With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
> like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
> unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
> cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
> unnecessary confusion:
>
> jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
>
> Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
> better.
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
