$.fn.replaceWithAndReturnNew = function(htmls){
var replacer = $(htmls);
$(this).replaceWith(replacer);
return replacer;
};
- Richard
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:31 AM, tchvil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for your replies.
> Ok, I guess there are good reasons to return the replaced object.
>
> Now my question becomes... is there a better jQuery way of doing this
> quite ugly thing:
>
> $.fn.replaceWithAndReturnNew = function(htmls){
> var replaced = $(this)[0];
> var div = document.createElement('DIV');
> div.innerHTML = htmls;
> var replacer = div.firstChild;
> replaced.parentNode.replaceChild(replacer, replaced);
> return $(replacer);};
>
> There's a working page there: http://friendpaste.com/GkTTkwQV
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Sep 18, 1:09 am, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, I missunderstood the initial (and subsequential) posts.
> > The present behavior (return the initially matched element) is the
> > correct one. That's what I'd expect and it matches the behavior of
> > remove(), append(), etc.
> >
> > Don't file any bug report :)
> >
> > Thanks Richard for pinging me about this.
> >
> > --
> > Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Sep 17, 6:12 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a bug, I'd expectreplaceWithto return the old set,
> > > just like append/etc.
> >
> > > Can you (tchvil) file a bug with a test case ? put it under core,
> > > assigned to me.
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > --
> > > Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com/
> >
> > > On Sep 17, 8:04 am, "Richard D. Worth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Karl Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Nah, it's not a bug.
> >
> > > > >replaceWith( content ) Returns: jQuery
> > > > > Replaces all matched elements with the specified HTML or DOM
> elements.
> > > > > This returns the JQuery element that was just replaced, which has
> been
> > > > > removed from the DOM
> >
> > > > > (http://docs.jquery.com/Manipulation)
> >
> > > > It may be well documented, but that doesn't mean it can't be a bug.
> ;)
> >
> > > > > It's like doing a remove(), followed by an append(). Like
> "remove()"
> > > > > it also "returns" (well keeps in the jQuery collection) the
> elements
> > > > > it removes.
> >
> > > > This is quite a fundamental difference. Since .remove() returns a DOM
> > > > Element, it's not chainable. SincereplaceWith() returns a chainable
> jQuery
> > > > object, it's reasonable to expect methods you call on that chain to
> effect
> > > > the new element, not your now removed/disconnected element(s). Like
> many
> > > > other methods, it could modify the chain. And if you wanted to get
> back to
> > > > the previous chain, you could call .end(). My 2c.
> >
> > > > - Richard
>
