"... DBJ 'mess' ... " ?
One espresso to many , Andrea :-) ?
PS: I think that top.alert() is "object" in IE because they can't
think of DOM as a exclusive domain of javascript. There is this thing
called "vbscript" they have to make work inside IE, as well ... but ..
let's not go there ;o)
On Jul 27, 5:43 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes Daniel ... ( sorry I had another ticket open and I read Ariel ... )
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes Ariel, I was talking about user defined stuff and obviously typeof
> > "unknown" breaks the rule as well but this is not the case, is it?
>
> > If toString.call(obj) is not reliable cause it could return [object Object]
> > DBJ "mess" is not reliable as well because passed variable could not produce
> > what he is expecting, starting from document.getElementById which is object
> > and not function in IE, got the point?
>
> > At least you told me why there is a call rather than an instanceof but what
> > about this for IE DOM functions?
>
> > return !!obj && typeof obj.toString === "undefined" &&
> > /^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
>
> > it works fine to me in every IE (other browsers will be filtered by first
> > feature test)
>
> > Regards
>
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
>
> >> typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
> >> document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
> >> fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
> >> toString.call(fn) === "[object Function]"; // Works the same across
> >> iFrames and returns more reliable results
>
> >> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> >> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> >> > About isFunction
>
> >> > I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === "[object Function]" was
> >> > introduced instead of obj instanceof function
>
> >> > I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks
> >> > could solve the odyssey:
>
> >> > isFunction: function( obj ) {
> >> > return obj instanceof Function;
> >> > },
>
> >> > isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === "[object Function]" ?
> >> > function( obj ) {
> >> > return toString.call(obj) === "[object Function]";
> >> > }:
> >> > // IE only and only until standard native function manifest
> >> > function( obj ){
> >> > return !!obj && typeof obj.toString === "undefined" &&
> >> > /^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
> >> > }
> >> > ,
>
> >> > In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
> >> > call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply
> >> > while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different behavior
> >> > for IE
>
> >> > switch(true){
> >> > case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
> >> > case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what, toArray(fn(ever)));
> >> > return what;
> >> > default: throw new Error("what tf?");
> >> > }
>
> >> > ... or maybe not?
> >> > Regards
>
> >> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> > <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com <mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
> >> > somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
> >> > included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into break
> >> > this rule, imho.
>
> >> >> On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, "DBJDBJ" <dbj...@gmail.com
> >> >> <mailto:dbj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> >> Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important
> >> >> mechanism.
> >> >> Which is a good thing.
> >> >> And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
>
> >> >> Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === "[object Object]"
>
> >> >> but it is more compact ...
>
> >> >> In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I
> >> >> think
> >> >> we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or
> >> not...
>
> >> >> --DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> >> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
> >> >> <mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> >> > I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the
> >> >> difference (in a > real scenario) betwe...
>
> >> >> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com
> >> >> <mailto:dbj...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > This indeed woks :
> >> functi...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
