I vote for subject or context
On May 6, 4:41 pm, alberto tarin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 6:47 am, Brandon Aaron brandon.aa...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking for any feedback on #3699 before committing, which is for allowing
an alternative scope for events. There is a patch attached to the
I've just had a look at r6344 and there seems to be an extra argument
in jQuery.event.add but that function hasn't been modified (yet?).
And maybe it's been mentioned before but if you're really adding this
feature why not do the same with $.each? Hopefully no one uses the
internal `args`
context++
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Balazs Endresz balazs.endr...@gmail.comwrote:
I've just had a look at r6344 and there seems to be an extra argument
in jQuery.event.add but that function hasn't been modified (yet?).
And maybe it's been mentioned before but if you're really adding
This is definitely useful and necessary. I'd put my two cents for it
being called either scope or context, which, though taken,
describe the actual purpose of the additional argument. pointer
might also be an appropriate name.
--adam
On May 5, 1:22 pm, Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming we do leave it within $.fn.bind(), then I'd say scope or
context. Completely against the other ones mentioned so far :)
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM, ajpiano ajpi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is definitely useful and necessary. I'd put my two cents for it
being called either scope or
I like that, it's perfectly accurate. Having overloaded methods is
already confusing, calling this feature scoping when it has nothing
to do with scope is a step in the wrong direction. Naming and docs
should be based on technically accurate and clearly understandable
concepts.
On May 5, 10:44
Well, to unify against scope and context, i'll throw my $.02
behind thisObject. It's closer to Mozilla's thisArg (which would
also be fine).
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply
On May 4, 6:47 am, Brandon Aaron brandon.aa...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking for any feedback on #3699 before committing, which is for allowing
an alternative scope for events. There is a patch attached to the ticket.
The ticket actually proposes a method signature that doesn't really fit
How about thisObject? Taken from Mozilla's docs for the forEach method (
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Objects:Array:forEach).
--
Brandon Aaron
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Michael Geary m...@mg.to wrote:
I don't find this feature all that useful myself,
Why not steal the term from grammar and call it the subject?
On May 4, 9:38 pm, Michael Geary m...@mg.to wrote:
I don't find this feature all that useful myself, since my callback
functions tend to be a mix of jQuery/DOM, setTimeout, Google Maps/Earth, and
other asynchronous APIs. If I can
I love that functionality, looks good to me!
Paul Bakaus
UI Architect
http://paulbakaus.com
Am 04.05.2009 um 06:47 schrieb Brandon Aaron brandon.aa...@gmail.com:
Looking for any feedback on #3699 before committing, which is for
allowing an alternative scope for events. There is a patch
I like it... but I think it is confusing and inconsistent.
We add this for events, but why not for animations ? or ajax
requests ?
Also... you need to document, the 'this' of the handler will be the
currentTarget, UNLESS you passed a scope to bind(). I think features
like this affect the
Yes, you can still unbind the named handler. The jQuery.event.proxy method
takes care of this.
--
Brandon Aaron
2009/5/4 Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com
Would you be able to unbind a specific function with a specific scope?
$(el).bind('click', fn, foo);
$(el).bind('click', fn,
I agree with Ariel, that this would be better served as a static
method. Dojo does the (fn, scope) (actually, we do a mixmatch and
allow curried args, but I digress) and it definitely is a learning
curve for js n00bs, and certainly not very jQuery-ish. by making it a
separate method, it becomes
I don't agree that this is confusing. I find it to be very beneficial to
have a method signature that grows to meet your needs but doesn't get in
your way when you don't need all of it. I know we've received both insult
and praise for our overloaded methods but that is how we roll! :)
It might be
I actually have to disagree with Pete and Ariel on this.
There are plenty of concepts that throw off the uninitiated, such as
any scoping, or even the funky concept of defining a function in the
method signature of another method.
And since the parameter is the last in the signature, it's
I still do not agree that this is better achieved by a static bind/hitch
method alone (for jQuery). Just because it is a typical power user feature
doesn't mean we shouldn't make it easily useable by non-power users. But for
me it is more than just catering to various levels of knowledge... it is
17 matches
Mail list logo
