Is there any reason you are keeping jQuery.event.proxy around? I
didn't see it used anywhere.
On Dec 31, 12:39 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I definitely agree that having a single, one-off, API addition (to
> bind and live) is kind of lame - especially when it conflicts with the
> jQuery way of defining the methods (having a non-callback argument
> being last).
>
> I sat down and wrote up a quick jQuery.bind() but found one critical
> issue that was not resolved by the hitch/bind/fn.prototype.bind
> technique: You can't (easily) unbind a function that has a different
> scope defined.
>
> For example:
>
> function foo(){}
> .bind( "click", foo.bind(someObject) );
> .unbind( "click", foo /* errr.... we actually need to save the fn
> somewhere */ );
>
> jQuery has already solved this problem internally using our
> jQuery.event.proxy method - and, in fact, if I were to land a
> jQuery.bind() it would end up using jQuery.event.proxy(). But if you
> look at jQuery.event.proxy() you can see that, in reality, we could
> just be using that method and skip this whole dance entirely. For
> example (and this works today, in jQuery 1.3.2):
>
> function foo(){}
> .bind( "click", jQuery.event.proxy( foo, someObject ) );
> .unbind( "click", foo );
>
> Save for the sugar that hitch provides I can't see any reason to not
> just promote jQuery.event.proxy() to jQuery.proxy() and make it an
> officially supported part of the jQuery API.
>
> Filed:http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/5736
> Landed (in a branch, for review and further
> discussion):http://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/66975de2d249643779e2b3daad0457...
>
> --John
>
> For fun, here is the jQuery.bind() that I quickly wrote (that DOESN'T
> use jQuery.proxy):
>
> diff --git a/src/core.js b/src/core.js
> index 944e8a9..1908123 100644
> --- a/src/core.js
> +++ b/src/core.js
> @@ -614,6 +614,20 @@ jQuery.extend({
> return ret.concat.apply( [], ret );
> },
>
> + bind: function( scope, fn ) {
> + if ( scope ) {
> + if ( typeof fn === "string" ) {
> + fn = scope[ fn ];
> + }
> +
> + if ( fn ) {
> + return function() {
> + return fn.apply( scope, arguments );
> + };
> + }
> + }
> + },
> +
> // Use of jQuery.browser is frowned upon.
> // More details:http://docs.jquery.com/Utilities/jQuery.browser
> browser: {
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is exactly what I was getting at... With regard to event handler
> > .bind() and fn.bind()
>
> > So far with my $.hitch tests, the one thing I dislike is the argument
> > structure. It does what it should but I'd much prefer
> > a function.prototype.bind() if given the choice.
>
> > -- Sent from my Palm Prē
> > ________________________________
> > ajpiano wrote:
>
> > I love the idea of extending scope manipulation to any function,
> > rather than only event handlers. Callbacks to ajax requests often
> > need a better scope than the XHR, and while I look forward to 1.4's
> > functionality for event handlers, it would really be a shame to
> > continue to force people to use non-jQuery solutions for full scope
> > manipulation.
>
> > 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
>
> > On Dec 29, 3:45 pm, Peter Higgins <phigg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It is a short-port of Dojo's dojo.hitch(). The only thing it doesn't do
> >> that Dojo's does is currying the arguments in the original hitched
> >> function, eg:
>
> >> // a bad example off the top of my head
> >> var x = $(".nodes");
> >> var clicker = $.hitch(x, "bind", "click");
>
> >> clicker(function(e){
> >> // this just called $(.nodes").bind("click", arguments[0])
>
> >> });
>
> >> It would be another few bytes to support that. dojo.partial is equally
> >> as neat.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter
>
> >> Rick Waldron wrote:
> >> > $.hitch() is a great "fn.bind()" solution, I still want to try a
> >> > variety of scope related tests, but so far its really solid. I love
> >> > the fact that you included the exception for a non existent method, I
> >> > referred to Prototype's latest and there is no such check.
>
> >> > Hats off.
>
> >> > Rick
>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com
> >> > <mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> > Agreed, that is slick. As soon as I get back to the office I'm
> >> > going to test it, I look forward to this.
>
> >> > -- Sent from my Palm Prē
>
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > aHeckman wrote:
>
> >> > Yeah this looks good Peter. This should be in core IMHO.
>
> >> > BTW, you're running for president? LOL
>
> >> > On Dec 29, 9:24 am, Peter Higgins <phigg...@gmail.com
> >> > <mailto:phigg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > > ... this is why I keep suggesting making the bind functionality as
> >> > > explicit function call, rather than hidden away in one or two
> >> > api's:
>
> >> > >http://higginsforpresident.net/js/static/jq.hitch.js
>
> >> > > It does not extend any native prototypes, is useful and a bit
> >> > magic
> >> > > (with the string->method resolution).
>
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Peter
>
> >> > > aHeckman wrote:
> >> > > > I too feel relying on a function.prototype.bind implementation
> >> > would
> >> > > > be the most forward looking but I'm not sure that jives with the
> >> > > > general approach of jQuery:
>
> >> > > > jQuery doesn't extend Native.prototype.anything.
>
> >> > > > On Dec 29, 1:12 am, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
> >> > <mailto:nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> Rick Waldron wrote:
>
> >> > > >>> Available, as in the "scope" argument is being retrofitted to
> >> > an
> >> > > >>> existing function, and ONLY to that function.
>
> >> > > >>> I don't get what you are talking about a fn.bind()
> >> > implementation in
> >> > > >>> jQuery, or what you mean by available in just one
> >> > function though.
>
> >> > > >>> Read ES5.
>
> >> > > >>> function.prototype.bind()
>
> >> > > >> I already read ES5, I use portions of ES5 in a number of js
> >> > server-based
> >> > > >> projects already.
>
> >> > > >> However I don't get "ONLY" one function, since the whole point
> >> > of
> >> > > >> .bind() is to bind a `this` onto ONE function with one call.
> >> > It's not
> >> > > >> bind otherwise.
>
> >> > > >> So I don't see any limitation. Unless you are under the
> >> > > >> misinterpretation that after you have called .bind() on one
> >> > function you
> >> > > >> have modified that function and bound it's `this`. .bind()
> >> > doesn't
> >> > > >> modify the function, it returns a new one.
> >> > > >> From ES5 15.3.4.5 Function.prototype.bind> The bind method
> >> > takes one or more arguments, thisArg and (optionally)
>
> >> > > >>> arg1, arg2, etc, and returns a *new*
> >> > > >>> function object by performing the following steps:
>
> >> > > >> So this is valid ES5 code.
>
> >> > > >> "use strict";
> >> > > >> var a = function() { alert(this); };
> >> > > >> var a1 = a.bind("a");
> >> > > >> var a2 = a.bind("b");
>
> >> > > >> a(); // Alerts undefined
> >> > > >> a1(); // Alerts "a"
> >> > > >> a2(); // Alerts "b"
>
> >> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Daniel Friesen
> >> > > >>> <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com <mailto:nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
> >> > <mailto:nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>> I made a post about how confusing people may find the
> >> > name bind some
> >> > > >>> time ago. Suggested renaming bind to something like
> >> > event, and keeping
> >> > > >>> bind as an alias of course. That was rejected.
>
> >> > > >>> I don't get what you are talking about a fn.bind()
> >> > implementation in
> >> > > >>> jQuery, or what you mean by available in just one
> >> > function though.
>
> >> > > >>> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire)
> >> > > >>> [http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> >> > > >>> Rick Waldron wrote:
> >> > > >>> > John,
>
> >> > > >>> > While I'm glad to see a scope arg available, i still
> >> > think this is
> >> > > >>> > negligent to the future of jQuery and ES standards. I
> >> > really think a
> >> > > >>> > fn.bind() implementation would ideal (since it would be
> >> > jQuery-wide
> >> > > >>> > and not just available in one function), but as I've
> >> > noted in
> >> > > >>> the past
> >> > > >>> > and is exampled here, beginners may find this syntax a
> >> > bit boggling:
>
> >> > > >>> > $(foo).bind('event', fn.bind(bar) );
>
> >> > > >>> > Rick
>
> >> > > >> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire)
> >> > [http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> >> > > > --
>
> >> > > > 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 <mailto:jquery-dev@googlegroups.com>.
> >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> >> > <mailto:jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> >> > > > For more options, visit this group
> >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
> >> > <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,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
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.
