Solid. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Brandon Aaron <brandon.aa...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm on board with this. > > -- > Brandon Aaron > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I added in jQuery.proxy( obj, name ) support as well (I like this - I > > also showed how to do it in Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja: > > > http://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/1d2b1a57dae0b73b3d99197f73f4edb623b5574a > > > > Any major concerns before I push this through? Will this meet the > > needs of everyone in the thread? > > > > --John > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 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/66975de2d249643779e2b3daad0457f7f5f92508 > >> > >> --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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>>> > > >>>> > <mailto:jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%252bunsubscr...@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, 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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>>> > > >>>> > <mailto:jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%252bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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.
