Re: [jQuery] :not, :and

Good idea!But not() cannot be called without(), because the counter part would then be with(), and with may be making some trouble with _javascript_s syntax..2006/9/7, Klaus Hartl < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Francisco Brito schrieb: > Should $().add() be $().and() instead? It makes more sense if the> coun

Re: [jQuery] :not, :and

Francisco Brito schrieb: > Should $().add() be $().and() instead? It makes more sense if the > counterpart is "not". I like that, it's even more readable. hey, what about not() should become without() ;-) -- klaus ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@j

[jQuery] :not, :and

Should $().add() be $().and() instead? It makes more sense if the counterpart is "not".-brito ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/