I looked at James Edwards' post, and I'm not seeing how this function is all that useful. (I mean no offense to pd; it's always worth looking at interesting bits of code like this, and I appreciate it being brought up.) Half of the code merely duplicates what JavaScript does for you and could be replaced by a simple "!" operator. Undefined? Null? The number zero? The boolean value false? All built in, so why bother with all that code? The other half implements a fairly specialized notion of what "empty" means. A string whose value is '0', or '', or only whitespace? An empty array? An object with no enumerable properties? Well, sure, if that's exactly what you need to test for. But why not just test for the specific thing you need instead of using a general pupose function with its own ideas of what is true and false that may or may not match your needs? -Mike
_____ From: chris thatcher you should cc the jquery-dev list for this idea as well, to ensure those developers see it. thatcher On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM, pd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All This idea by James Edwards seems like a winner and an ideal candidate for a new jQuery core utility method: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/16/techy-treasures-1/ Obviously his choice of name conflicts with the jQuery .empty() method however another name could be used such as: hasValue() This method would simply return a boolean response. What does everyone think? pd -- Christopher Thatcher
