[jquery-dev] Re: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
There are two main points here: terminology and reliability.
http://dbj.org/dbj/?p=270
(sorry for a blog plug )
typeof( window.alert ) === 'object' is going head-on towards browser
(+OS) differences so, same as ECMA comitee, I have no resources to
solve that one ...
--DBJ
On Aug 1, 3:16 pm, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
come on it was quoted as a metaphor ... what you have done makes sense but
if the point is reliability it does not in any case with IE so let's speed
up a common function, no?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
... DBJ 'mess' ... ?
One espresso to many , Andrea :-) ?
PS: I think that top.alert() is object in IE because they can't
think of DOM as a exclusive domain of javascript. There is this thing
called vbscript they have to make work inside IE, as well ... but ..
let's not go there ;o)
On Jul 27, 5:43 pm, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes Daniel ... ( sorry I had another ticket open and I read Ariel ... )
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Ariel, I was talking about user defined stuff and obviously typeof
unknown breaks the rule as well but this is not the case, is it?
If toString.call(obj) is not reliable cause it could return [object
Object]
DBJ mess is not reliable as well because passed variable could not
produce
what he is expecting, starting from document.getElementById which is
object
and not function in IE, got the point?
At least you told me why there is a call rather than an instanceof but
what
about this for IE DOM functions?
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
it works fine to me in every IE (other browsers will be filtered by
first
feature test)
Regards
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Friesen
nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
wrote:
typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
toString.call(fn) === [object Function]; // Works the same across
iFrames and returns more reliable results
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object Function]
was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks
could solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object
Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply
while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different
behavior
for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what,
toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into
break
this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an
important
mechanism.
Which is a good thing.
And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
but it is more compact ...
In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so
I
think
we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or
not...
--DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the
difference (in a real scenario) betwe...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:This indeed woks :
functi...
[jquery-dev] Re: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
As summary
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
with a given IE function, it should not fail. Other browsers can use the
good old [object Function] trick.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I solved it already, have you tried my snippet to understand native IE
functions?
Native IE functions have these features
- they are not instanteof Function
- they are not instanceof Object
- accordingly, they have not a toString method, decompilation is in this
case safe enough
- you cannot call them via Function callbacks ( function expected, lol )
Regards
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two main points here: terminology and reliability.
http://dbj.org/dbj/?p=270
(sorry for a blog plug )
typeof( window.alert ) === 'object' is going head-on towards browser
(+OS) differences so, same as ECMA comitee, I have no resources to
solve that one ...
--DBJ
On Aug 1, 3:16 pm, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
come on it was quoted as a metaphor ... what you have done makes sense
but
if the point is reliability it does not in any case with IE so let's
speed
up a common function, no?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
... DBJ 'mess' ... ?
One espresso to many , Andrea :-) ?
PS: I think that top.alert() is object in IE because they can't
think of DOM as a exclusive domain of javascript. There is this thing
called vbscript they have to make work inside IE, as well ... but ..
let's not go there ;o)
On Jul 27, 5:43 pm, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes Daniel ... ( sorry I had another ticket open and I read Ariel
... )
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Ariel, I was talking about user defined stuff and obviously
typeof
unknown breaks the rule as well but this is not the case, is it?
If toString.call(obj) is not reliable cause it could return
[object
Object]
DBJ mess is not reliable as well because passed variable could
not
produce
what he is expecting, starting from document.getElementById which
is
object
and not function in IE, got the point?
At least you told me why there is a call rather than an instanceof
but
what
about this for IE DOM functions?
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
it works fine to me in every IE (other browsers will be filtered
by
first
feature test)
Regards
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Friesen
nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
wrote:
typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
toString.call(fn) === [object Function]; // Works the same
across
iFrames and returns more reliable results
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object
Function]
was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct
callbacks
could solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object
Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function
manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee
call/apply
while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different
behavior
for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what,
toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into
break
this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
[jquery-dev] Re: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object Function] was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks could
solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when call/apply are
supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply while a DOMFunction
could require a try catch or a different behavior for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what, toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if somebody breaks
the rule it means we cannot trust anything included typeof. So, in few
words, nobody has intersts into break this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important
mechanism.
Which is a good thing.
And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
but it is more compact ...
In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I think
we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or not...
--DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the difference (in
a real scenario) betwe...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
This indeed woks : functi...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
toString.call(fn) === [object Function]; // Works the same across
iFrames and returns more reliable results
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object Function] was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks
could solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply
while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different behavior
for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what, toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into break
this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important
mechanism.
Which is a good thing.
And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
but it is more compact ...
In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I
think
we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or not...
--DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the
difference (in a real scenario) betwe...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:This indeed woks : functi...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
Yes Ariel, I was talking about user defined stuff and obviously typeof
unknown breaks the rule as well but this is not the case, is it?
If toString.call(obj) is not reliable cause it could return [object Object]
DBJ mess is not reliable as well because passed variable could not produce
what he is expecting, starting from document.getElementById which is object
and not function in IE, got the point?
At least you told me why there is a call rather than an instanceof but what
about this for IE DOM functions?
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
it works fine to me in every IE (other browsers will be filtered by first
feature test)
Regards
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Friesen
nadir.seen.f...@gmail.comwrote:
typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
toString.call(fn) === [object Function]; // Works the same across
iFrames and returns more reliable results
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object Function] was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks
could solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply
while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different behavior
for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what, toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into break
this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important
mechanism.
Which is a good thing.
And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
but it is more compact ...
In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I
think
we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or
not...
--DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the
difference (in a real scenario) betwe...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:This indeed woks :
functi...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
Yes Daniel ... ( sorry I had another ticket open and I read Ariel ... )
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Ariel, I was talking about user defined stuff and obviously typeof
unknown breaks the rule as well but this is not the case, is it?
If toString.call(obj) is not reliable cause it could return [object Object]
DBJ mess is not reliable as well because passed variable could not produce
what he is expecting, starting from document.getElementById which is object
and not function in IE, got the point?
At least you told me why there is a call rather than an instanceof but what
about this for IE DOM functions?
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
it works fine to me in every IE (other browsers will be filtered by first
feature test)
Regards
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Friesen nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com
wrote:
typeof fn === 'function'; // Some things like
document.createElement('object'); return wonky results
fn instanceof Function; // Breaks across iFrames
toString.call(fn) === [object Function]; // Works the same across
iFrames and returns more reliable results
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
About isFunction
I lost the point where toString.call(obj) === [object Function] was
introduced instead of obj instanceof function
I understand differences in IE so I wonder if two distinct callbacks
could solve the odyssey:
isFunction: function( obj ) {
return obj instanceof Function;
},
isDOMFunction: toString.call(window.alert) === [object Function] ?
function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Function];
}:
// IE only and only until standard native function manifest
function( obj ){
return !!obj typeof obj.toString === undefined
/^\s*\bfunction\b/.test(obj);
}
,
In this way we could consider that in every browser, and when
call/apply are supported, isFunction(fn) will guarantee call/apply
while a DOMFunction could require a try catch or a different behavior
for IE
switch(true){
case $.isFunction(fn): return fn.call(what, ever);
case $.isDOMFunction(fn): what.push.call(what, toArray(fn(ever)));
return what;
default: throw new Error(what tf?);
}
... or maybe not?
Regards
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if
somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything
included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into break
this rule, imho.
On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important
mechanism.
Which is a good thing.
And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
but it is more compact ...
In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I
think
we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or
not...
--DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the
difference (in a real scenario) betwe...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com
mailto:dbj...@gmail.com wrote:This indeed woks :
functi...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
I usually encapsulate toString from Object.prototype and if somebody breaks the rule it means we cannot trust anything included typeof. So, in few words, nobody has intersts into break this rule, imho. On Jul 26, 2009 8:07 AM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote: Also, IMHO this yields high level of encapsulation of an important mechanism. Which is a good thing. And it is a fraction of a micro second slower then Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object] but it is more compact ... In any case we are entering the subjective judgement phase, so I think we should stop here and leave it to jQuery team to use this or not... --DBJ On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the difference (in a real scenario) betwe... On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote: This indeed woks : functi... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the difference (in a
real scenario) between these two checks:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === Object.prototype.toString.call({})
and
Object.prototype.toString.call(x).match(/\w+/g)[1] ===
Object.prototype.toString.call({}).match(/\w+/g)[1]
finally please tell me the difference with this:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
I am usually against redundant, slow, or superflous code ... maybe I am
wrong here, am I?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
This indeed woks : function isObj(o){ return
Object.prototype.toString.call(o) === '[object Object]' }
But I do not like it ;o) It does not seem very exact somehow ... I
mean using a string literal, and all that...
I would suggest this very simple and robust little set of functions :
// and now much simpler implementation
function isWhat(o){ return Object.prototype.toString.call(o).match(/\w
+/g)[1]; }
function isObject(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat({}); }
function isArray(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat([]); }
function isFunction(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(Function()); }
function isString(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(); }
function isNumber(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(1); }
No obfuscations here, and no awesome code. This seems very simple
and robust solution to me.
--DBJ
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
var dbj = {} ;
dbj.isWhat = function(o) { return Object.prototype.toString.call
(o).match(/\w+/g)[1]; }
// optimization
dbj.TYPENAMES = { 'obj' : dbj.isWhat({}), 'arr' : dbj.isWhat([]),
'fun' : dbj.isWhat(Function()), 'str' : dbj.isWhat
(),
'num' : dbj.isWhat(1) } ;
dbj.isObject = function(x) { return dbj.isWhat(x) ===
dbj.TYPENAMES.obj; }
dbj.isArray = function(x) { return dbj.isWhat(x) ===
dbj.TYPENAMES.arr; }
dbj.isFunction = function(x) { return dbj.isWhat(x)
=== dbj.TYPENAMES.fun; }
dbj.isString = function(x) { return dbj.isWhat(x) ===
dbj.TYPENAMES.str; }
dbj.isNumber = function(x) { return dbj.isWhat(x) ===
dbj.TYPENAMES.num; }
Above will work equaly well without regexp inside isWhat(), but , I
like to have a typename as 'Object' rather than '[object Object]'. You
never know which browser/OS combination will break the rules and
return some slightly different format from Object.prototype.toString
()...
All of this is just (re)packaging of the usage of
Object.prototype.toString.call(x), mechanism.
Without string literals, and without using 'typeof'.
And, as I said this implementation seems simple, rounded and portable
to me. ( allow me to mention non-browser environments where this also
will work) .
--DBJ
On Jul 26, 12:09 am, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I miss the point about regexp usage ... please tell me the difference (in a
real scenario) between these two checks:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === Object.prototype.toString.call({})
and
Object.prototype.toString.call(x).match(/\w+/g)[1] ===
Object.prototype.toString.call({}).match(/\w+/g)[1]
finally please tell me the difference with this:
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) === [object Object]
I am usually against redundant, slow, or superflous code ... maybe I am
wrong here, am I?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
This indeed woks : function isObj(o){ return
Object.prototype.toString.call(o) === '[object Object]' }
But I do not like it ;o) It does not seem very exact somehow ... I
mean using a string literal, and all that...
I would suggest this very simple and robust little set of functions :
// and now much simpler implementation
function isWhat(o){ return Object.prototype.toString.call(o).match(/\w
+/g)[1]; }
function isObject(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat({}); }
function isArray(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat([]); }
function isFunction(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(Function()); }
function isString(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(); }
function isNumber(x) { return isWhat(x) === isWhat(1); }
No obfuscations here, and no awesome code. This seems very simple
and robust solution to me.
--DBJ
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
To prove the point (or not) one can do this :
isObject : function ( obj ) {
if ( (this.constructor + ).match(/Object/)) alert
( this.constructor ) ;
return this.constructor.call(obj) === Object;
}
if this is Object the result will be false. Allways.
--DBJ
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
$.isObject({}) returns false!
I see that $.isObject is used in $.extends, to test whether an empty
object should be created:
if ( src ) {
clone = src;
} else if ( jQuery.isArray(copy) ) {
clone = [];
} else if ( jQuery.isObject(copy) ) {
clone = {};
} else {
clone = copy;
}
So, in this situation we are not interested in other native objects
(ie. Date, RegExp, etc.) which will be treated as immutable values, so
why not just use:
isObject: function( obj ) {
return toString.call(obj) === [object Object];
}
-- Mark
2009/7/23 John Resig jere...@gmail.com:
I'll rope Yehuda in to see if he can explain it.
--John
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Balazs Endresz balazs.endr...@gmail.com
wrote:
It has been marked as invalid and suggested to bring it up here:
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4946
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
2009/7/24 Samer Ziadeh samerzia...@gmail.com: isn't everything an object? No: typeof 2; // returns number typeof new Number(2); // returns object typeof ; // returns string typeof new String(); // returns object Primitive types such as string and number will be automatically converted to an object of the appropriate type if necessary (e.g. 2.valueOf()) but they are not objects as such. See ECMAScript 262 section 4.3, and section 9 on Type Conversion. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
if ( Function !== typeof String.prototype.strim )
String.prototype.trim = function() { return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g,
''); }
function isWhat ( x ) {
return (+x.constructor).split(()[0].split(function)[1].trim
() ;
// or your clever RegEx here ...
}
function isObject ( x ) {
return isWhat(x) === Object ;
}
function isArray ( x ) {
return isWhat(x) === Array ;
}
// and so on ... for other types
IMHO this might be one of the alternatives, also very strict and
robust ...
--DBJ
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
Checking the constructor is a bad idea; if you try checking the
constructor of an object within an iframe it won't have the same
constructor as an object outside of the iframe. I think this'll do
what's required:
function isObj(o){ return Object.prototype.toString.call(o) ===
'[object Object]' }
from:
http://thinkweb2.com/projects/prototype/instanceof-considered-harmful-or-how-to-write-a-robust-isarray/
On 24 July, 15:00, DBJDBJ dbj...@gmail.com wrote:
function isWhat ( x ) {
return (+x.constructor).split(()[0].split(function)[1].trim
() ;
// or your clever RegEx here ...
}
--DBJ
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Ticket #4946, jQuery.isObject
isn't everything an object? On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 07:52, John Resig jere...@gmail.com wrote: I'll rope Yehuda in to see if he can explain it. --John On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Balazs Endresz balazs.endr...@gmail.comwrote: It has been marked as invalid and suggested to bring it up here: http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4946 -- Samer Ziadeh www.samerziadeh.com Let It Be --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
