I don't think it is necessarily a defeat. When I first started doing jQuery I looked into $. versus jQuery. and I found that the general consensus was that you should only use $. when writing jQuery plugins. This is what I decided to do. There are other javascript libraries out there that use $. (prototype) But in your plugins you know that $. is safe.
This is probably a religious issue. And much shorter syntax. But i digress. My plugins are not served up via Mason. Regards, Bill On 04/11/2012 10:00 AM, Jonathan Swartz wrote: > On Apr 11, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Oliver Paukstadt wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:53 -0500, Jonathan Swartz wrote: >>> Oliver - in answer to your original question, I don't have any good ideas >>> about the best way to "escape" $. in code, but I'm open to ideas you have >>> and would be willing to put some kind of escaping syntax in, as long as it >>> didn't break something else in the process :) >> I think best is what Bill suggested: >> If I need to embed javascript/jquery code into html I can use the long >> syntax jQuery.whatever(). > Hmm, ok. Feels like a defeat though. :) The $. syntax probably came into my > head because I had been using jquery recently - didn't consider the > possibility that it would conflict. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
