On Sep 2, 2:21 pm, msoliver <michaelsoli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fair point. What you suggest certainly would be better than no check. > But, it's not a test that openerFunc is actually a function, just that > it exists and has an call property.
That seems better to me than the crazy logic in 1.2's isFunction()! Any time that (typeof openerFunc != 'function') you are going to be making assumptions. Is there any chance in your code that openerFunc will be non-null (or undefined) and have a call property? If not, then how is this check not good enough? You could make it a little more robust by doing: if (openerFunc && typeof openerFunc.call=='function') Matt Kruse
