> Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
> impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
> anyway.
>
You aren't calling jQuery.bind() though, you're calling
jQuery("something").bind() - that's a big distinction. You're working
against a set of elements - that set is an object. There is no special
meaning attached to Object.bind().
I don't particularly care for any of the proposals mentioned here. When
jQuery came out in Jan of 2006 - Function.prototype.bind() was already
heavily used by the most popular framework at the time: Prototype. And yet
developers have been able to grasp the distinction and use the framework
well.
To put it another way: Let's say that ES6 adds .remove(), .add(), or some
other method names that we also use - I don't think we should force
ourselves to rename every method on the off chance that they have the same
name.
--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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
