On Aug 3, 2007, at 20:24 , John Resig wrote:
On 8/3/07, Josh Nathanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
josh, how is that maintaining backwards compatibility?
I assume that you will still be able to use the old selectors, but
the
underlying method that processes them will be different - thus
They'll be deprecated in 1.1.4, removed in 1.2.
--John
On 8/3/07, Josh Nathanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > josh, how is that maintaining backwards compatibility?
>
> I assume that you will still be able to use the old selectors, but the
> underlying method that processes them will be di
> josh, how is that maintaining backwards compatibility?
I assume that you will still be able to use the old selectors, but the
underlying method that processes them will be different - thus they will be
"deprecated". Is that not correct jQuery gurus?
-- Josh
age -
> From: "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:29 PM
> Subject: [jQuery] Re: :eq vs :nth?
>
>
> >
> >
> > --John
> >
> > On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Selectors are staying, the methods are going.
Ah yes, that's the way to maintain backwards compatibility.
- Original Message -
From: "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: [jQuery] Re: :eq vs :nth?
--John
thanks.
-GTG
On 8/3/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Selectors are staying, the methods are going.
>
> --John
>
> On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > quick question... are the :eq() etal... selectors gonna stay? or are
> they
> > going to be removed as well.
Selectors are staying, the methods are going.
--John
On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> quick question... are the :eq() etal... selectors gonna stay? or are they
> going to be removed as well.
>
>
> -GTG
>
> On 8/3/07, John Resig < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, it
arwaha
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: [jQuery] Re: :eq vs :nth?
quick question... are the :eq() etal... selectors gonna stay? or are they
going to be removed as well.
-GTG
On 8/3/07, John Resig < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quick question... are the :eq() etal... selectors gonna stay? or are they
going to be removed as well.
-GTG
On 8/3/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Well, it should be noted that we're remove .lt() .gt() and .eq() in
> favor of a new .slice() method, which will be able to produce
>
cool, i will keep an eye on that
-GTG
On 8/3/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Well, it should be noted that we're remove .lt() .gt() and .eq() in
> favor of a new .slice() method, which will be able to produce
> identical results (and even better).
>
> --John
>
> On 8/3/07, Ganesh
Well, it should be noted that we're remove .lt() .gt() and .eq() in
favor of a new .slice() method, which will be able to produce
identical results (and even better).
--John
On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i agree, but i saw hasClass() in the roadMap for 1.2.
> So, i th
i agree, but i saw hasClass() in the roadMap for 1.2.
So, i thought you were adding some convenience methods. So thought i would
give my .02 coz, this sometimes had a tendency to increase my code and
decrease legibility with a lot of .lt(var + 1) and .gt(var - 1).
I, in particular don't have a pro
Probably not since :le(3) is the same thing as :lt(4).
--John
On 8/3/07, Ganeshji Marwaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> meantime, is there any possibility to add le() and ge() (for lesser than or
> equal to and greater than or equal to).
> I am under the assumption it is not already there.
>
> -G
Ganeshji Marwaha wrote:
meantime, is there any possibility to add le() and ge() (for lesser than
or equal to and greater than or equal to).
I am under the assumption it is not already there.
these are gt() and lt()
--Klaus
meantime, is there any possibility to add le() and ge() (for lesser than or
equal to and greater than or equal to).
I am under the assumption it is not already there.
-GTG
On 8/3/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Huh... I should probably nuke :nth().
>
> --John
>
> On 8/3/07, Karl S
Huh... I should probably nuke :nth().
--John
On 8/3/07, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They're the same, so you can use whichever you prefer.
>
> From jquery.js:
>
> nth: "m[3]-0==i",
> eq: "m[3]-0==i",
>
>
>
> --Karl
> _
> Karl Swedberg
> www.englishrules.com
> www
They're the same, so you can use whichever you prefer.
From jquery.js:
nth: "m[3]-0==i",
eq: "m[3]-0==i",
--Karl
_
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Aug 3, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Matt Penner wrote:
I've
17 matches
Mail list logo
