Which methods you propose for the library are entirely up to you. The development team will make the ultimate decision if they want to include them or make efficiency modifications. i was just offering a tweak to #compact to make it work as described. :)
Good luck! -joe t. On Nov 13, 12:19 pm, jacoz <jacopo.nu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Joe T., > well, I've followed your suggests and so (I remember you the > linkhttp://tr.im/EBEP): > - updated Array#compact > - updated Element#ajaxRequest > - added Element#ajaxUpdate > > So now you have an empty function when using #ajaxRequest, and the > update function when using #ajaxUpdate! > Is that good, according to you? > > Which methods would you suggest me to propose? > > Thank you so much! > Jacopo. > > On Nov 13, 4:49 pm, "joe t." <thooke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > i agree with a lot of Eric's points so far. There are some > > interesting, and possibly useful utility methods in this, but there > > are others that would needlessly bloat an already fairly bloated > > library (don't get me wrong, i still love it). The thing i would point > > out for #ajaxRequest is similar to Eric's point: by embedding an > > onSuccess call, you force the user to either replace it with their own > > callback, or pass an empty function just to make it not do the default > > element update. It's usually better practice to minimize the amount of > > required options and let the user include more as they need them. i > > actually don't do element updates from Ajax request as a frequent > > practice, so this modification would harm my code overhead. > > > Also, as a minor clarification: in #compact, the "strict" argument > > name should be changed to "aggressive". (" ") is not "strictly" an > > empty string. It's just 100% white space. Seems like nitpicking, but > > with other mentions of helping novice coders understand more about JS > > libraries, consistent semantics are a huge part of that. > > > Eric's right about using tests outside loops, but there are a couple > > issue with the proposed correction: > > 1. From the original, value.strip() is wrong, because #strip() doesn't > > exist for non-string values. > > > 2. Several values are false-ish, so they get removed from the results > > even without the aggressive argument. If the intent of this #compact > > method is to only remove null/undefined in lazy mode, Prototype.K > > won't work. Returning "" to the select() comparison ends up false, so > > "" gets dropped. > > > Suggested: > > compact(aggressive){ > > return this.select(aggressive === true ? > > function(v){return v != null && v.toString().strip() != ''} : > > function(v){return v !== null && v !== undefined} > > ) > > > } > > > The adjustment ensures that the intent of only stripping null and > > undefined remains intact, since so many values can evaluate to false- > > ish ("", 0, [], etc). And mentioning zero, what if there's desire to > > be super-aggressive and remove those, or also remove actual boolean > > falses? :) > > -joe t. > > > On Nov 13, 8:07 am, Eric <lefauv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Jacopo, > > > > On Nov 12, 4:29 pm, jacoz <jacopo.nu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > thanks for your suggests! > > > > Well, now I answer all of your questions ;) > > > > - I named Element.ajaxRequest() in that way because by default it > > > > updates the element, but you can change the "onSuccess" function! > > > > OK, but if you don't change the element in the onSuccess, there is no > > > point using this method instead of Ajax.Request. > > > > > - I've written String#len and String#getType because some newbies may > > > > not knows that attributes ;) > > > > Well, you must not forget that every single byte you add to the > > > library will be loaded by every single page using the library. > > > Peoples are already complaining because prototype is "big", so if we > > > start to add useless things, it will be worst. > > > Moreover, newbies should better learn about length and the DOM > > > attributes instead of some exotic name not portable (and slower) > > > methods > > > > > - I've re-written Array#compact: now the control is not recursive > > > > It wasn't recursive, it was slow :o) > > > > But still, "return value != null" is the same than "return value" (at > > > least when passed to Enumerable.select) and it is exactly what > > > Prototype.K function does. > > > > > (thanks) > > > > > Here is the code:http://tr.im/EBEPtheArray#comapctstartsat at > > > > line 128 > > > > > Which methods do you suggest me to propose?? > > > > Well it is up to you, but Element.ajaxUpdate, Object.isBoolean or your > > > change to Array.compact sounds like useful features to me. > > > > Eric > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jacopo. > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:15 am, Eric <lefauv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This has some nice ideas like Element.ajaxRequest() (which I would > > > > > have called Element.ajaxUpdate() since it is what it does :o) ), but > > > > > also some features I fail to see any utility to. > > > > > I.E., what's the point to use 'string'.len() instead of > > > > > 'string'.length? > > > > > Same thing for $('someElement').getType() instead of $ > > > > > ('someElement').nodeName > > > > > > Also, try to limit the impact on performances by avoiding tests in > > > > > loops when you can do them outside of the loop. > > > > > I.E, in your Array.compact version, you may replace : > > > > > compact: function(strict) { > > > > > return this.select(function(value) { > > > > > return strict === true ? value != null && value.strip() != '' : > > > > > value != null; > > > > > });} > > > > > ...by something like: > > > > > compact: function(strict) { > > > > > return this.select(strict === true ? function(value) { return > > > > > value != null && value.strip() != '' } : Prototype.K);} > > > > > > The procedure to submit contributions is described > > > > > here:http://www.prototypejs.org/contribute > > > > > You may propose some of yours (I'd recommend proposing only the more > > > > > interesting methods) once you've validated that they don't break the > > > > > test cases. > > > > > > HTH, > > > > > Eric > > > > > > On Nov 10, 10:07 am, Jacopo Andrea Nuzzi <jacopo.nu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tobie, > > > > > > thanks for you suggest: here it is:http://tr.im/EBEP > > > > > > > Jacopo > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Tobie Langel > > > > > > <tobie.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi jacoz, > > > > > > > > Seems like your Array#add would benefit from using Array#splice. > > > > > > > >https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Object... > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Tobie > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
