Yeah, like what he is suggesting is to return a boolean value.... so
now if someone wants the position of the item, it would be a whole
separate function to do so....
to me, one single function and checking the value is more "intuitive",
maybe if it was named something more inline with what it returns (like
for instance, "indexOf") makes more sense, but none the less the
function kills two birds with one stone
On Mar 23, 4:19 pm, Eric Garside <gars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, inArray and arrayPosition are equally intuitive to me. If
> the value has a position in the array, then it is, by definition, in
> the array. inArray returning the array position is a similar check,
> but with a more robust ouput. Again, as MorningZ said, you can simply
> check it's value using a simple gt operator. I honestly don't care too
> much about inArray returning a non-boolean value which may be
> unintuitive to some users. After all, the docs are there for a
> reason.
>
> On Mar 23, 3:51 pm, Mike521 <mi...@favorfavor.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
