Sweet.
Trey
On Aug 8, 1:51 am, John Resig wrote:
> Yep, .live() blur/focus support is still slated for jQuery 1.3.3 (due this
> month).
>
> --John
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:48 PM, treshug...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey guys,
>
> > I know about .livequery, but it didn't work for me.
Thanks. If you need any more test cases or further information, let me
know.
JK
From: jquery-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Resig
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:34 PM
To: jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ticket #4917
Unfor
Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to look in to it yet, but I will try to
as soon as possible.
--John
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jeffrey Kretz wrote:
> Has anyone had a chance to look over this ticket?
>
>
>
> http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4917
>
>
>
> It is a critical issue, with Sizz
Has anyone had a chance to look over this ticket?
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4917
It is a critical issue, with Sizzle returning an incorrect set of child
elements in IE6/7/8.
JK
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribe
Yeah, unfortunately I think that's the best we provide at the moment :-/
--John
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM, theallan wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks very much for your reply and confirmation of what I though was
> happening. The closest I could find was the proxy wrapper for the
> function
Hi John,
Thanks very much for your reply and confirmation of what I though was
happening. The closest I could find was the proxy wrapper for the
function in the cache - but of course there is no way to get the
wrapped function, just the wrapper.
Regards,
Allan
On Aug 7, 4:34 pm, John Resig wr
Yep, .live() blur/focus support is still slated for jQuery 1.3.3 (due this
month).
--John
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:48 PM, treshug...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I know about .livequery, but it didn't work for me. As a result, I
> wrote a plugin called bond (uses .bond and .unbond) that i
Unfortunately the original function is kind of tucked away, since $().live()
is really just a shortcut for $(document).bind("foo", fn); (well, sort of,
since there's some additional overhead where the selectors are run).
--John
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:20 AM, theallan wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
@ludovic, javascript IS an object oriented language. There is no need
for simulation. It's just a different type of oop than classical.
function Person (name) {
this.name = name || 'Nobody';
}
Person.prototype = {
sayName: function () {
alert('Hi my name is ' + this.name);
}
}
There’s a simpler solution for the problem with context:
jQuery.fn.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach || [fallback];
Examples of the fallback implementation:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Objects:Array:forEach#Compatibility
http://code.google.com/p/vice-versa/sour
If you want to keep you function's context, you can still do
$('div').each( function() {
Context.myFunction( this );
} );
Anyway, I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to simulate object
oriented syntax with javascript.
It isn't an object oriented language and trying to make a language in
a
Hello all,
I'm wondering if it is possible to obtain the original function that
someone has added to a document using $.live()? When you use a
'regular' event binding, jQuery stores the original function in (for
example) jQuery.cache[3].events.click[6] (=function). However, with
the live() events
Hi guys, for some days I've got a question about usage of scope inside
jquery iterators like each.
Do you really think that referring to current item using "this" is a good
thing? I think it's limitation for who use jquery in object oriented
approach.
I think it will be better passing current item
13 matches
Mail list logo
