I'm not discussing whether I can or can't use it the way it is, I'm
discussing which way is more intuitive.
On Mar 23, 3:18 pm, MorningZ <morni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> just can't say
>
> if ($.inArray("value", array) > -1) {
> // found in array?
>
> }
>
> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, Mike521 <mi...@favorfavor.com> wrote:
>
> > I was about to use inArray (http://docs.jquery.com/Utilities/
> > jQuery.inArray) to determine if an element was in an array or not, but
> > I realized I can't use it as a true/false response since it returns
> > the position (and could return 0 if the element was found in position
> > 0 - returns -1 if not found). I was expecting something with the same
> > functionality as the PHP function in_array (http://us3.php.net/
> > in_array)
>
> > I know it's a minor point but wouldn't it be more intuitive if called
> > arrayPosition? with a name like that I'd expect the functionality it
> > has now.
