H... nice, I didn't know of this project "vice-versa"... it covers
my needs, indeed... :-)
Thanks, Andrea!
Diogo
On May 26, 12:54 pm, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> I think I have no problems with vice-versa :D
>
> I use jQuery mainy for Sizzle and some tricky method so I would implement
> d
I think I have no problems with vice-versa :D
I use jQuery mainy for Sizzle and some tricky method so I would implement
directly Array.forEach if not present, rather than another jQuery method
which aim is to clone specs ( so it should not be jQuery method )
You can simply include only this file
Hi, Andrea, sorry for being late in my answer... :-(
Thanks for the explanation! Well, in my opinion, we would better stick
with MDC implementation in JS, because this way we can tell exactly
what the code does to people who want to know what it is, and because
it has passed by a whole lot of tes
Ok. This is the point. Array.forEach is mainly used with non Array objects.
This is because with an Array we'll simply use a.forEach() rather than
Array.forEach(a).
The most common case about Array.forEach is with HTMLCollection, a live
object.
Array.forEach(document.getElementsByTagName("div"),
Andrea,
I don't think I got your point with live objects and forEach... could
you please give an example where the basic implementation (as shown by
Mozilla) would not be adequate?
Thanks!
Diogo
On May 22, 5:29 am, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> Ok, MDC specs do not consider the length, so the
Ok, MDC specs do not consider the length, so the most close is this
Array.forEach = Array.forEach || function(obj, callback, scope){
for(var i = 0, length = obj.length; i < length; ++i){
if(i in obj)callback.call(scope, obj[i], i,
obj);
};
};
Sorry for that
To be honest I wrote something a bit redundant, this one is better if you
want to use the length.
Array.forEach = Array.forEach || function(obj, callback, scope){
for(var i = 0; i < obj.length; ++i){
if(i in obj)
callback.call(scope, obj[i], i, obj);
};
};
even more sim
Actually, the main usage of Array.forEach is with non Array, like live
objects. Since with DOM is easy to remove a node and the result of the live
object could be completely changed, do you prefere 100 useless if I in obj
or just a loop brek thanks to changed length? Dunno which is faster and the
p
yes it is working fine in ie8
--- On Thu, 21/5/09, diogobaeder wrote:
From: diogobaeder
Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: $.each and JS 1.6's forEach
To: "jQuery Development"
Date: Thursday, 21 May, 2009, 8:41 PM
Hmmm... close, I agree, but still not cross-browser compliant... ;-)
There is no need to take in consideration eventual length updates;
that slows considerably, and it is not garanted in any/each native
implementation:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Global_Objects/Array/ForEach
On May 21, 5:39 pm, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> IE8? o
IE8? obviously no, how can you pretend a browser that implemented
defineProperty only for Window and DOM can be "so advanced" with other
native constructors? :D
Anyway, the most legacy like forEach is something like this:
Array.forEach = Array.forEach || function(obj, callback, scope){
for(va
Hmmm... close, I agree, but still not cross-browser compliant... ;-)
Question: does IE8 support these methods (abstract and instance)
natively?
Diogo
On May 20, 3:37 pm, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> P.S. Array.forEach is standard in FireFox and some other browser, so it is
> still native one
>
P.S. Array.forEach is standard in FireFox and some other browser, so it is
still native one
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jQuery.forEach = Array.forEach || function(){ ... }
>
> now you are close to vice-versa logic, where you can simpl
jQuery.forEach = Array.forEach || function(){ ... }
now you are close to vice-versa logic, where you can simply use
Array.forEach with every array like variable, DOM colelctions included ;-)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:39 PM, diogobaeder wrote:
>
> Hmmm... almost there, in my opinion, Andrea... I
Hmmm... almost there, in my opinion, Andrea... I think it could be
used in the main jQuery object (singleton), also, to minimize browser
dependance, if the user wants to use it with normal Array objects...
like:
jQuery.forEach(myArrayObject, , myCallback, myContext);
What do you think? This way,
JQuery.fn.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach || function(){ ... }; easy? :-)
On May 20, 2009 3:07 AM, "diogobaeder" wrote:
Matt,
I think your approach is usefull only if one wants to create a new
jQuery method... because checking everytime if forEach method exists
is not easily maintainable...
Matt,
I think your approach is usefull only if one wants to create a new
jQuery method... because checking everytime if forEach method exists
is not easily maintainable...
Maybe it could be a $.forEach, applying the Mozilla implementation if
the browser doesn't support the method... what do you
On May 19, 9:19 am, diogobaeder wrote:
> Brainstorming: what about a $.each2 method, to avoid messing with the
> original signature (name + parameters), but using
> Array.prototype.forEach?
Why not just call Array.prototype.forEach in your code if it exists?
Matt Kruse
--~--~-~--~
Hmmm... interesting... thanks, Andrea!
Brainstorming: what about a $.each2 method, to avoid messing with the
original signature (name + parameters), but using
Array.prototype.forEach?
Diogo
On May 18, 11:29 am, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> it's not about the name, it's about arguments plus ret
it's not about the name, it's about arguments plus returned value.
I do not know why John decided at that time to make jQuery.fn.each "a bit
redundant" avoiding JS 1.6 forEach MDC specs and limiting performances boost
via native callback ( it would be a double wrap, one to return the jQuery
object
20 matches
Mail list logo
