Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
anyway.
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
