On Nov 2, 1:28 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > This changed slightly in the latest nightlies - if you do $(0) it'll > be as if you did $() or $([]). As of now any false-ish value will give > you an empty jQuery set. > > Considering that there is no intended behavior for passing in a number > to the jQuery object this seems fine to me. > > I'm curious - why were you passing in a number to the jQuery object? I > could sort of, kind of, understand passing in an array of values - but > just one number doesn't make sense. It was an array of values, but that array could also be a number, which was then converted into an array, except for the 0 case. This is bad form, relying on undocumented behaviour. I have since fixed my code, but still curious. Principle of least surprise says that $(1) and $(0) should be consistent. To match the nightlies, perhaps $(1) should be an empty jQuery object?
> Did you find this by accident, or are you writing code that depends on > $(2) returning 2? By accident, found that $(2) returns [2], so using it as a conversion (though no longer, as above) Xavier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@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.
