There are two "main points" here: terminology and reliability.
http://dbj.org/dbj/?p=270
(sorry for a blog plug )
typeof( window.alert ) === 'object' is going head-on towards browser
(+OS) differences so, same as ECMA comitee, I have no resources to
"solve" that one ...
--DBJ
On Aug 1, 3:16 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> come on it was quoted as a metaphor ... what you have done makes sense but
> if the point is reliability it does not in any case with IE so let's speed
> up a common function, no?
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "... 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
