[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
anyway.
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg aubourg.jul...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world, jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery, I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what happens to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
Pascal here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work anyway. You aren't calling jQuery.bind() though, you're calling jQuery(something).bind() - that's a big distinction. You're working against a set of elements - that set is an object. There is no special meaning attached to Object.bind(). I don't particularly care for any of the proposals mentioned here. When jQuery came out in Jan of 2006 - Function.prototype.bind() was already heavily used by the most popular framework at the time: Prototype. And yet developers have been able to grasp the distinction and use the framework well. To put it another way: Let's say that ES6 adds .remove(), .add(), or some other method names that we also use - I don't think we should force ourselves to rename every method on the off chance that they have the same name. --John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups jQuery Development group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
is not in the context of a function).
Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
just because a function exists on some other global object like
Function, String, Date, etc.
On Jul 22, 8:11 am, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
anyway.
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg aubourg.jul...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world, jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery, I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what happens to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
Pascal here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
I see your points. Since jQuery.prototype.bind exists it overrides
Function.prototype.bind. Gotcha.
What I'm really trying to get at is if this community feels the
following is clear, and if not, is it worth the trouble to change it?
jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
So far it sounds like we feel this is good enough.
On Jul 22, 10:05 am, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
is not in the context of a function).
Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
just because a function exists on some other global object like
Function, String, Date, etc.
On Jul 22, 8:11 am, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
anyway.
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg aubourg.jul...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world, jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery, I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what happens
to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
Pascal here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
jQuery instanceof Function = true
jQuery.prototype instanceof Function = false
Both ‘bind’ methods do what they are intended to do and do not
interfere with each other.
On Jul 22, 8:10 pm, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
I see your points. Since jQuery.prototype.bind exists it overrides
Function.prototype.bind. Gotcha.
What I'm really trying to get at is if this community feels the
following is clear, and if not, is it worth the trouble to change it?
jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
So far it sounds like we feel this is good enough.
On Jul 22, 10:05 am, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
is not in the context of a function).
Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
just because a function exists on some other global object like
Function, String, Date, etc.
On Jul 22, 8:11 am, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
anyway.
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg aubourg.jul...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously
since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world,
jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery,
I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what
happens to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
Pascal here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
If the all name is still around then it is ok, it's just sometimes in
the past changes where made that would not support earlier ways of
doing thing which lead to plugins no longer working. If it's more an
alias that is created than I am up for it.
I like Daniel's idea of event(), couldn't make more sense than that
really :)
On Jul 20, 11:03 am, Már mar.orlygs...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
I think as `Function.prototype.bind` becomes more mainstream (years
from now) this will indeed become common cause of confusuion for
jQuery newcomers.
However, all mature libraries are bound have their share of
idiosyncratic/lame-duck legacy naming baggage to confuse newcomers.
jQuery has a couple or so already:
* `$.fn.load()` has fundamentally different semantics depending on
the arguments you feed it.
* `$.fn.remove()` is not a normal `removeChild()`, but actually a
destroy method.
* etc.
...and it's very difficult to avoid these sort of things completely -
without either A) clean restart (breaking backwards compatibility) -
or B) building up a large stack of depricated method names that lie
hidden/forgotten only to spring on unsuspecting developers when they
least need to have to deal with cryptic bugs in their code.
Design is damn hard.
;-)
--
Már
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
I like $.connect(ev, fn) ;)
Gilles wrote:
If the all name is still around then it is ok, it's just sometimes in
the past changes where made that would not support earlier ways of
doing thing which lead to plugins no longer working. If it's more an
alias that is created than I am up for it.
I like Daniel's idea of event(), couldn't make more sense than that
really :)
On Jul 20, 11:03 am, Már mar.orlygs...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
I think as `Function.prototype.bind` becomes more mainstream (years
from now) this will indeed become common cause of confusuion for
jQuery newcomers.
However, all mature libraries are bound have their share of
idiosyncratic/lame-duck legacy naming baggage to confuse newcomers.
jQuery has a couple or so already:
* `$.fn.load()` has fundamentally different semantics depending on
the arguments you feed it.
* `$.fn.remove()` is not a normal `removeChild()`, but actually a
destroy method.
* etc.
...and it's very difficult to avoid these sort of things completely -
without either A) clean restart (breaking backwards compatibility) -
or B) building up a large stack of depricated method names that lie
hidden/forgotten only to spring on unsuspecting developers when they
least need to have to deal with cryptic bugs in their code.
Design is damn hard.
;-)
--
Már
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously since,
again, they are different classes).
someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world, jQuery.bind()
has semantic within the jQuery world.
I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery, I
see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what happens to
be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
Pascal here? ;)
2009/7/14 aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
I think as `Function.prototype.bind` becomes more mainstream (years
from now) this will indeed become common cause of confusuion for
jQuery newcomers.
However, all mature libraries are bound have their share of
idiosyncratic/lame-duck legacy naming baggage to confuse newcomers.
jQuery has a couple or so already:
* `$.fn.load()` has fundamentally different semantics depending on
the arguments you feed it.
* `$.fn.remove()` is not a normal `removeChild()`, but actually a
destroy method.
* etc.
...and it's very difficult to avoid these sort of things completely -
without either A) clean restart (breaking backwards compatibility) -
or B) building up a large stack of depricated method names that lie
hidden/forgotten only to spring on unsuspecting developers when they
least need to have to deal with cryptic bugs in their code.
Design is damn hard.
;-)
--
Már
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
Daniel - exactly. I would prefer to deprecate bind and move forward
with a cleaner name, tho I agree with Gilles on bind being a great
name right now. It just won't be in the near future.
On Jul 17, 4:19 pm, Daniel Friesen nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com wrote:
Renamed are best done by creating the new name and leaving the old
name around for compatibility.
This isn't a rename bind to something else and force everyone to
change it's a give a new standard name for bind leaving the old name
in place for old code so that new projects have a name they can use
which isn't ambiguous with ES5's .bind()
I kindof like .event()
On 17-Jul-09, at 9:19 AM, Gilles gil...@netxtra.net wrote:
element.bind('click', someFunction, this); - This way allow backward
compatibility.
Your way, renaming the functions the most uses in plug-in, will mean
an aweful lot of developers will have to go through their code and
update it. And to be honest I don't see how anything else could
describe better what the function already does.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
element.bind('click', someFunction, this); - This way allow backward
compatibility.
Your way, renaming the functions the most uses in plug-in, will mean
an aweful lot of developers will have to go through their code and
update it. And to be honest I don't see how anything else could
describe better what the function already does.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
Renamed are best done by creating the new name and leaving the old
name around for compatibility.
This isn't a rename bind to something else and force everyone to
change it's a give a new standard name for bind leaving the old name
in place for old code so that new projects have a name they can use
which isn't ambiguous with ES5's .bind()
I kindof like .event()
On 17-Jul-09, at 9:19 AM, Gilles gil...@netxtra.net wrote:
element.bind('click', someFunction, this); - This way allow backward
compatibility.
Your way, renaming the functions the most uses in plug-in, will mean
an aweful lot of developers will have to go through their code and
update it. And to be honest I don't see how anything else could
describe better what the function already does.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
In jQuery 1.3.3 the above code could be written as
element.bind('click', someFunction, this);
On Jul 14, 4:20 pm, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[jquery-dev] Re: Rename bind/unbind?
I know that with 1.3.3 it is possible to pass the third argument but
that is not my point. I am proposing a cleaner API around event
listening to avoid any confusion between function(){}.bind() and
jQuery.bind(). They serve two different purposes.
On Jul 14, 8:57 am, Azat Razetdinov razetdi...@gmail.com wrote:
In jQuery 1.3.3 the above code could be written as
element.bind('click', someFunction, this);
On Jul 14, 4:20 pm, aHeckman aaron.heckm...@gmail.com wrote:
With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
unnecessary confusion:
jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
better.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
