John, I tend to assume that anything prefixed with 'is' or 'has' will return a
boolean. I think this is likely a common assumption.
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Prē
ajpiano wrote:
I meant people are used to using $(foo).anyfiltermethod().length.
Glad to see .contains() is gone until it can be all it can be. As it
was, .contains was just a shortcut to .is(":has(foo)")
On Dec 16, 11:14 pm, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People are use to using .has()? It was only just added - at the same
> time as .contains() as well.
>
> I'll mull over the .contains() discrepancy. I may just punt it and
> push people towards .has() anyway.
>
> Looking at .has() now I'm not 100% sure why it's filtering and not
> just returning a boolean, like .is(). Hmm. If .has() returns a boolean
> then yeah, consider .contains() gone (and a jQuery.contains will be
> provided for those that need a lightweight method).
>
> --John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:04 PM, ajpiano <ajpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems like a matter of course that means of filtering that are
> > exposed as both pseudoselectors and methods on the jQuery prototype
> > return the same set of elements, or at least that they generally apply
> > the same principle in filtering. Examples include eq, not, first,
> > last, and has. While the :parent pseduo doesn't work the same
> > as .parent(), most developers know what they're looking for if they're
> > using :parent.
>
> > The new $.fn.contains method, however, doesn't work like :contains.
> > Rather than searching for the text content of elements, .contains() is
> > just a shortcut to $(elem).has("foo").length > 0. I'm not sure why
> > this is really a necessary shortcut, given that most people are plenty
> > used to doing something like .has().length anyway. I tend to think,
> > however, that .contains () should work like :contains, for
> > consistency's sake.
>
> > This would have the added benefit of allowing those people who do
> > use :contains to write code like this:
>
> > var foo = "barbazbat";
> > $("div").contains(foo);
>
> > instead of
> > $("div:contains("+foo+")");
>
> > Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
>
> > --adam
>
> > --
>
> > 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
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
--
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.
--
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.
