ajpiano wrote:
> That said, and while I do love (and frequently recommend) $.hitch, I
> prefer an approach more like Prototype or Underscore's that doesn't
> involve passing so many strings.
>
> --adam
>
You don't have to pass any strings?
$(".foo").bind("click", $.hitch(this, function(e){
// we've preserved the parent context
});
var o = { b:1, j: function(t){ this.b += t } };
var fn = $.hitch(o, o.j);
fn(10); // bad example, but calls o.j(10) in context
UnderscoreJS's bind() is very similar, though is more like dojo.partial
(the cousin of hitch):
bind_.bind(function, object, [*arguments])
Bind a function to an object, meaning that whenever the function is
called, the value of this will be the object. Optionally, bind arguments
to the function to pre-fill them, also known as currying.
var func = function(greeting){ return greeting + ': ' + this.name };
func = _.bind(func, {name : 'moe'}, 'hi');
func();
=> 'hi: moe'
The API is just "backwards". (the above example would be var fn =
_.bind(o.j, o); )
Whichever way, they are essentially the same thing. The string stuff is
just an extra piece of shorthand. Some like it, some don't. My point is
that hiding this usefulness in $.fn.bind only would only complicate
things, but adding some 150 bytes to core to support this function
(whichever direction the api sig goes) gives everyone the ability to use
it and keeps the other stuff simple and backwards compatible.
Regards,
Peter
--
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.
