I see your points. Since jQuery.prototype.bind exists it overrides
Function.prototype.bind. Gotcha.
What I'm really trying to get at is if this community feels the
following is clear, and if not, is it worth the trouble to change it?
> jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
So far it sounds like we feel this is good enough.
On Jul 22, 10:05 am, Scott González <scott.gonza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
> is not in the context of a function).
>
> Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
> nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
> just because a function exists on some other global object like
> Function, String, Date, etc.
>
> On Jul 22, 8:11 am, aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
