I've always felt that it's bad form to give a method two distinctly different responsibilities. 'pluck' implies getting a property... setting the property should be named differently (IMHO).
If there is confusion regarding the Enumerable methods, then it should be dealt with in documentation rather than implementation. Just my $0.02. - Skip On 8/14/07, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice one, Tom! > > As far as naming I'd rather go with same pluck but with optional > second argument for setting value > > $$('#myFormId input').pluck('disabled'); // getter > $$('#myFormId input').pluck('disabled', true); // setter > > You have no idea how much confusion there's among beginners as far as > figuring out all these "weird" Enumerable methods (specially if you're > not familiar with Ruby). > Introducing another one, I believe, would bring even more chaos. > > P.S. > > Since we're on this subject, has anyone ever considered having case- > insensitive flag for Array's without method. > > $('nav').descendants().pluck('tagName').without('LI') (i.e. when > dealing with HTML vs XML case issues) > > I know, this case is pretty trivial and could be simply done with > selectors: > > $$('#nav li a') > > but wouldn't it be still usefull to have such option? > > Best, > kangax > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---