Yea, the backwards compatibility is really the major issue with making a basically cosmetic change.
On Mar 24, 12:04 pm, benjamw <benjamwel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I agree with Mike521, if I were to stumble onto that function > without any related documentation, I would assume it to return a > boolean value as well. While I agree with the "kill two birds with > one stone" argument against changing the actual function, indexOf > seems to be a more intuitive function name while still remaining short > in length (shorter than arrayPosition). Although it may be more of a > headache to change now, with the risk breaking innumerable plugins and > pages. > > On Mar 23, 10:58 pm, Eric Garside <gars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If you'd prefer shortcut functionality, try: > > > $.isInArray = function(arr){ return $.inArray(arr) > -1 ? true : > > false } > > > On Mar 23, 4:59 pm, Klaus Hartl <klaus.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > Read inArray as positionInArray rather than isInArray here... > > > > --Klaus > > > > On 23 Mrz., 21:25, MorningZ <morni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, like what he is suggesting is to return a boolean value.... so > > > > now if someone wants the position of the item, it would be a whole > > > > separate function to do so.... > > > > > to me, one single function and checking the value is more "intuitive", > > > > maybe if it was named something more inline with what it returns (like > > > > for instance, "indexOf") makes more sense, but none the less the > > > > function kills two birds with one stone > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:19 pm, Eric Garside <gars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Honestly, inArray and arrayPosition are equally intuitive to me. If > > > > > the value has a position in the array, then it is, by definition, in > > > > > the array. inArray returning the array position is a similar check, > > > > > but with a more robust ouput. Again, as MorningZ said, you can simply > > > > > check it's value using a simple gt operator. I honestly don't care too > > > > > much about inArray returning a non-boolean value which may be > > > > > unintuitive to some users. After all, the docs are there for a > > > > > reason. > > > > > > On Mar 23, 3:51 pm, Mike521 <mi...@favorfavor.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not discussing whether I can or can't use it the way it is, I'm > > > > > > discussing which way is more intuitive. > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 3:18 pm, MorningZ <morni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > just can't say > > > > > > > > if ($.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.