This one is slightly better altough not in jQuery style:
$.fn.replaceWithAndReturnNew = function(html){
var elm = $(this)[0].cloneNode(false);
$(this).after(elm).remove();
elm.innerHTML = html;
return $(elm);};
On Sep 20, 9:31 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
