Hi Nic,
I'd love to see this included directly in Prototype to allow for
Event.fire and Element#fire to trigger DOM events (and not only custom
ones).
This would imply researching on how to trigger keyboard events (I know
YUI has a working implementation, for example), and providing a simple
wra
Heh. If I am, then I'll be that person "some time in the future" :)
I'm trying to work on unittest; which just happens to co-share a repo +
mailing list with prototype :)
On 2/4/08, Nick Stakenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Yes there might be a better/more complete possibility, and someon
> Yes there might be a better/more complete possibility, and someone might do
> it in the future
> I think I'd rather see an incremental fix now; AND wait for someone to write
> an even better version later.
> Perhaps once this patch is in, someone else will look at it
You could be that someone
The reason I'm not too keen on adding this two unit tests is two-
folds:
First I think it belongs in Prototype core, secondly, I'm in the
process of rewriting a good deal of unit_tests so I really don't think
it's a good time to add features to it. I'd rather strengthen it as
much as possible be
I don't have a timeframe for this unfortunately.
And yes, the API will change quite a bit as we'd like to map it more
closely to ruby's Test::Unit implementation.
I'm not far enough into refactoring to know how backward-compatible
this rewrite will be.
Will make sure to let you know as soon as
Based on Mislavs function here's on that also handles special cases
like _rc1.
function vnum(vstring) {
var v = vstring.replace(/_.*|\./g, '');
v = parseInt(v + '0'.times(4-v.length));
return vstring.indexOf('_') > -1 ? v-1 : v;
}
vnum('1.6.0') > vnum('1.6.0_rc1') //-> true
vnum('1.6.0') /
I'll re-read your response again later, but at first glance it looks like a
long-winded way of saying "no"... :)
Yes there might be a better/more complete possibility, and someone might do
it in the future, but this patch looks better than what we have, and exists
now. That seems like a good thing.
On Feb 4, 12:40 pm, "Nic Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll re-read your response again later, but at first glance it looks like a
> long-winded way of saying "no"... :)
To me it just means: put it where it belongs.
Best,
Tobie
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Ideally, I agree. But that code doesn't exist yet.
We do have a good patch to the existing code. Perhaps once this patch is in,
someone else will look at it all and have a "big idea" for refactoring it
into prototype proper. But if it can be helpful in unittest immediately,
then that's good?
On 2/
What's your timeframe for finishing this? Will its API change much?
I started doing screencasts of "how to use unittest" today for peepcode.
If this patch is not useful, then it suggests the current
Event.simulateMouse code should be removed as part of the refactoring. Force
people to go looking
10 matches
Mail list logo
