Hi Mo. Many thanks for this, I see indeed according to your Plunker it DOES work.
I had an app where I couldn't get it to work at the time with a primitive type, I changed it to an object literal and it worked. I shrugged it off and just continued with the app but I was kinda curious as to why that happened. The issue must have been somewhere else! Thank you for the info :) On Monday, 20 July 2015 16:09:01 UTC+2, Mo Moadeli (CREDACIOUS) wrote: > > Here <http://plnkr.co/edit/z6UhcnorthFHFbrVZNPc?p=preview> is a simple > plunker that demonstrates otherwise. You *can* use a Javascript primitive > type in the ng-model and an object literal isn't required. > > If I didn't understand you correctly please create a plunker and share. > You may have been caught in one of the common mistakes when using > primitives in AngularJS. > > Thanks! > Mo > > On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 5:23:55 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hey there everyone :) >> >> I have a very silly question but I cannot seem to find an answer >> anywhere... >> >> Why does ng-model for a checkbox in AngularJS require a property on an >> object? Why can it not just be set to a literal value on the scope? >> >> For example, the AngularJS documentation stipulates: >> >> <label>Value1: >> <input type="checkbox" ng-model="checkboxModel.value1"> >> </label><br/> >> >> >> This works perfectly fine, if value1 is a property on the checkboxModel >> object. But if you initialise value1 on your scope and assign the ng-model >> to just value1, it no longer works. Why is that? >> >> Thanks :) >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AngularJS" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
