Sorry, I posted an old version of code. Here the new one:
jQuery.fn.add = function( selector, context ) {
return this.pushStack( jQuery.unique( jQuery.merge(
this.get(),
typeof selector === string ?
jQuery( selector, context
|| this.context
It's very detailed, thank you for the demos! But I don't quite
understand the purpose of them. If you are saying $.map() shouldn't
work on objects because wrapping functions is not a good practice,
then $.map() should also not work on arrays. Here is why:
// options now is a sequence
var options
But making map() functions work on hashes makes sense, so why rule
them out?
There are at least three reasons why this is not a good idea:
1. $.map() is not a real general purpose map function. If callback
returns an array then its items will be values because in same cases
it is convenient
1. $.map() is not a real general purpose map function. If callback
returns an array then its items will be values because in same cases
it is convenient that a callback can returns multiple values. So if
you make $.map() generic for all hashes than you would $.map()
generic for all sequences
var hash = { a: 1, b: 2 }
$.map( hash, function( val, key ) {
if( key === 'a')
return { c: 3, d: 4 };
else
return val;
});
And now hash is { c: 3, d: 4, b: 2 }. It doesn't conflict with
anything.
Can you explain which objects you expect would extend the final
To be more accurate,
$([]).add( nodeList )
can not contains comment nodes only on IE.
This makes it even more ambiguous, with unexpected results.
Also it seams that the only expected NodeList is from an
getElementsByTagName.call.
I know that it is not explicitly supported by the API, but
Can you explain which objects you expect would extend the final
object, and which object would not?
(nodes are objects too)
I think it should make the following expression evaluate to true:
object object.constructor === Object
( I'm not sure if it's strict enough, but what I mean is that the
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:37 AM, gMinuses gminu...@gmail.com wrote:
If your argument is scoping, it is not enough.
I don't quite understand what your are saying, could you be more
specific?
The main point, I think, is that you have not convinced either of us
of the worth of your proposed
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:22 AM, gMinuses gminu...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very detailed, thank you for the demos! But I don't quite
understand the purpose of them.
I was trying desperately to come up with some real-world use of your
suggestion, and noted that your example used callbacks, and I
I think you're right here - I'm not completely convinced that this
distinction still needs to exist. Could you file a ticket? Thanks.
--John
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Robert Katić robert.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
To be more accurate,
$([]).add( nodeList )
can not contains comment
This seems reasonable, as well. Can you file a ticket? Thanks.
--John
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Robert Katić robert.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I posted an old version of code. Here the new one:
jQuery.fn.add = function( selector, context ) {
return this.pushStack(
|| this.context (this.context.ownerDocument || this.context)
There's something -- let's say redundant -- about this line. :-)
-- Scott
(a (b || a)) == a
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
There's something -- let's say redundant -- about this line. :-)
Ignore me. Brain fart.
-- Scott
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to
I think it should make the following expression evaluate to true:
object object.constructor === Object
( I'm not sure if it's strict enough, but what I mean is that the
object should be constructed by Object )
This is technically a more complex problem then you think.
There was an John
OK, the real-world use is this:
I'm writing a plugin for jquery that implements mvc pattern, and it
works like this:
Define a model:
$.mvc.model({
myModel: {
myMethod: function() {}
}
});
Define a controller and call a model from the controller:
$.mvc.controller({
I came across an oddity with jQuery.merge from a completely different
route -- looking through jQuery.support properties. It looks like
jQuery.merge is testing for jQuery.support.getAll, but I can't for the
life of me find anywhere in the source where jQuery.support.getAll is
being
Eww... It must've been accidentally cut in the last release - but we
didn't notice because the worst case is only a minor perf hit. Well,
it makes it pretty easy to actually just remove it then! (Especially
if the only place where it's being used internally is in this
soon-to-be-stripped method.)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, gMinuses gminu...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, the real-world use is this:
I'm writing a plugin for jquery that implements mvc pattern, and it
works like this:
[ ... ]
$.mvc.controller({
myController: {
myAction: function() {
// Pass in a
Thanks, Karl.
I didnt know that the title element was treated as a special case and
was selecting it using jQuery's $('title') selector syntax. That
failed miserably in IE7. Changing my code to use document.title as you
suggested solved the problem.
On Sep 11, 9:08 am, Karl Swedberg
Here's something I wrote that will give you a place to start:
http://www.ericmmartin.com/5-tips-for-using-jquery-with-wordpress/
You'll want to make sure not to use $(document)..., because WordPress
calls jQuery.noConflict();.
To your other question, I suggest adding the code into an external js
This issue has already been reported in Trac[1], but I just wanted to
mention it here.
In IE8 (not using compatibility mode), the :hidden and :visible
selectors do not work on table cells. The Trac page has a couple test
pages, but in general, these selectors fail:
$('td:hidden') and
Thanks! Now I'm convinced. I never thought it's going to be that
complicated. Maybe I just should stick with for( key in object ).
On Oct 30, 10:42 pm, Robert Katić robert.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should make the following expression evaluate to true:
object object.constructor ===
The alerts in following code do not show the same result in IE6 due to
a bug[1] (also discussed on stackoverflow.com[2]).
$('input type=hidden /').attr('name', 'foo').appendTo
(document.body);
alert(document.getElementsByName('foo').length); // Alert shows 0
in IE6 and 1 in other browsers
Since implementing a $.map() working on objects is not an easy task,
I've given up the idea.
BTW, here is the project if you are interested:
http://github.com/gminuses/jquerymvc.
Regards
On Oct 31, 12:49 am, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, gMinuses
The ajax options parameter, unlike every other(?) options parameter,
is used in place.
ajax: function( s ) {
// Extend the settings, but re-extend 's' so that it can be
// checked again later (in the test suite, specifically)
s =
Hello to All
I have used different JavaScript on my website but only one script is
working.
This is the link
http://makemycreative.in/30oct_09
You will see these a button Name: Services = That is working
But under “service button” there is another Javascript “Slidshow”
Could you please look in
The alerts in following code do not show the same result in
IE6 due to a bug[1] (also discussed on stackoverflow.com[2]).
That's a well-known bug for those of us who lived through the dark
time when IE6 was the most popular browser in the world (for some
definition of popular).
Should jQuery
The ajax options parameter, unlike every other(?) options
parameter, is used in place.
That does seem kind of fishy. I don't recall seeing a ticket for this,
it's at least worth considering. Do you want to create one at
dev.jquery.com?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
28 matches
Mail list logo
