Agree.
Note that !!('') is also false. And [] == false.
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com/
On Oct 23, 2:11 am, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
