On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:38, Julian Aubourg wrote:
> .remove() ?
>
$.trigger();
> 2009/11/24 Samer Ziadeh
>
> $.hell('YES!');
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 21:22, wrote:
>>
>>> Beautiful Brazilian Girls xe2x80x93 Samba mixe
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.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribe
t; To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@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.
>
--
Samer Ziadeh
ww
options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jQuery Development" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
I support this as well.
On 2009-10-28, at 3:15 PM, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> ditto.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:00 AM, weepy wrote:
>>
>> i strongly support this.
>>
>> to my mind the notion that you can exclusively apply feature
>> detection
>> to the extremely complex browsers is optimistic.
>
How does it perform if you remove the .find(), so you get $('#mySelect
option:selected').text()
On 2009-09-21, at 10:50 AM, matthew_maxwell wrote:
>
> I've been using jQuery for a little bit now, and have noticed that
> whenever you are attempting to use jQuery on selects with a large
> amount
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > selector and cycles through them to find if "this" is any
> of those
> > > > > > > > > elements.
> >
> > > > > > > > > If my memories about my algorithm lec
>
>>> --John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, jeanph01 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>> My code is 2x faster (according to firebug profile) with the 1.3.3
>>>> nightly build compared
>> > + jsonReviver: null
> >> >},
> >> >
> >> >// Last-Modified header cache for next request
> >> > @@ -565,7 +566,7 @@
> >> >// Get the JavaScript ob
text" property does not correspond with the "context"
> > > > parameter. I'm not too bothered about it but it seems to be causing
> > > > confusion elsewhere.
> >
> > > Correct - regardless of what's passed in as the context argument
l and mess up the look of the site. any ideas on why or how
> to fix this?
>
> >
>
--
Samer Ziadeh
www.samerziadeh.com
"Let It Be"
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"j
er project section, it is very choppy, and jitters past
> > the boundaries of its containing element.
> >
> > I've tried removing the large image, reducing the list set down to a
> > mere 3 elements, removing the other DOM elements involved (the project
> > details), and
Not possible. The ability to change
Yeah I was reading over the ES5
--
Samer Ziadeh
www.samerziadeh.com
"Let It Be"
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" gr
supports the first parameter, though, not the second. So the
> above example would work, but Daniel Friesen's won't (until browsers
> get ES5 support).
>
> On Aug 13, 8:29 pm, Samer Ziadeh wrote:
> > So how would this translate to the update method without the new
have it wrong?
var boy = Person();
var girl = Person();
> You could even chose to make those non-enumerable or lock them with values.
>
Yeah I was reading over the specifications, but I haven't really thought
about it fully as to how implement
at was recently brought into
> the harmony group, makes this possible:
> function Foo() {
>return {
> [parent: Foo.prototype],
>
> foo: "I'm a value",
> const _bar: "You can't set or delete me after this",
> };
> }
>
&g
use it disappears in ES5 as
>> it's no longer the only way to create new objects with a set prototype.
>> There's nothing strange about having a $ function and creating an object
>> from it, in fact it's closer to real prototype-based programming than
>> the `n
t; callback?
>
> I never said that was inferior, I merely explained the context for why
> the decision was made.
> >
>
--
Samer Ziadeh
www.samerziadeh.com
"Let It Be"
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscr
> > should be called.
> >
> > http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/2542
> >
>
--
Samer Ziadeh
www.samerziadeh.com
"Let It Be"
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&quo
nvalid 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 G
20 matches
Mail list logo
