>
> but if I had this need I'd know I can just rely on the mutable nature of
> javascript and redefine the $() within my app to behave however I want.
Very true, and I have done just that. My goal was not only to help myself,
but also others in the future who might not realize what is happening and
why. I can certainly understand and respect why don't think it belongs,
though.
- Adam
On 6/18/07, Ryan Gahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> my vote is #1
>
> It is up to the devs to a) use the name and id attributes properly, and b)
> wrap anything you want any way you want in some "custom wrappers" file that
> you load in after prototype (or whatever library it is you are creating the
> wrapper for).
>
> For instance, I have never had this problem, nor do I think I ever will
> (if an element i want does not have an id, I can either add one or get the
> reference via some other selector on a case by case basis -- basically the
> name attribute has no value to me whatsoever)... but if I had this need I'd
> know I can just rely on the mutable nature of javascript and redefine the
> $() within my app to behave however I want.
>
> If this type of change _does_ make it into prototype, it would be an
> addition of unnecessary code, IMHO.
>
> On 6/18/07, Adam McCrea < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So sorry to beat this dead horse, but I just want to weigh in my
> > thoughts on this before it gets shot down. I agree that $ should only be a
> > light wrapper around getElementById, but unfortunately getElementById is
> > broken across browsers. I'm surprised to hear that you think the fix is
> > heavy. In my eyes it is a lightweight fix to save some major headaches for
> > those who don't have control over the HTML source.
> >
> > My vote is for #2!
> >
> > - Adam
> >
> > On 6/18/07, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 18, 2:01 am, "Mislav Marohnić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >There are only 3 possible options we're facing:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Don't change the $ function, leave everything as-is;
> > > > 2. Fix the issue in $ by using $$('*[id=foo]');
> > > > 3. Don't fix the issue, throw error instead.
> > >
> > > My vote is for #1. The $ function is intended to be a light wrapper
> > > around document.getElementById . The impulse is noble to want to
> > > correct IE's incorrect behavior (and Opera's emulation thereof), but I
> > > think it's just a little too heavy.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> Ryan Gahl
> Manager, Senior Software Engineer
> Nth Penguin, LLC
> http://www.nthpenguin.com
> --
> Architect
> WebWidgetry.com / MashupStudio.com
> Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform
> --
> Inquire: 1-262-951-6727
> Blog: http://www.someElement.com
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
