I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the difference (in a
real scenario) between these two checks:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === Object.prototype.toString.call({})
and
Object.prototype.toString.call(x).match(/\w+/g)[1] ===
Object.prototype.toString.call({}).match(/\w+/g)[1]
finally please tell me the difference with this:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === "[object Object]"
I am usually against redundant, slow, or superflous code ... maybe I am
wrong here, am I?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> This indeed woks : function isObj(o){ return
> Object.prototype.toString.call(o) === '[object Object]' }
>
> But I do not like it ;o) It does not seem very exact somehow ... I
> mean using a string literal, and all that...
> I would suggest this very simple and robust little set of functions :
>
> // and now much simpler implementation
> function isWhat(o){ return Object.prototype.toString.call(o).match(/\w
> +/g)[1]; }
>
> function isObject(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat({}); }
> function isArray(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat([]); }
> function isFunction(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(Function()); }
> function isString(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(""); }
> function isNumber(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(1); }
>
> No obfuscations here, and no "awesome" code. This seems very simple
> and robust solution to me.
>
> --DBJ
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
