Brandon Aaron schrieb:
> What I mean by changing the behavior of the is method is this ... The
> is method returns true or false based on the condition. What will the
> return value be if you pass in a function or two functions for
> if/else? Would it still return true/false or the actual unchanged
> jQuery object? Same question applies for the not method suggestion ...
> Would it return a modified jQuery object or an unmodified one when
> functions are passed?
>
You are right: While adding paramters to a method is ok, changing the
return type is not.
>> This avoids the anonymous functions, but it's use is limited to jQuery
>> methods.
>>
> So I think maybe I missed the goal of the $else construct. It seems
> its purpose is to provide a way to apply only jQuery methods. I can
> see the benefit of this but still really dislike the name since it is
> a keyword. Maybe name it 'otherwise'.
>
I thought about otherwise, too. I changed it to else$ lately, but that
is stupid, too.
> I still think providing a method named 'ifelse' that takes an
> expression and two methods or maybe even one. I could see this being
> very useful and flexible. The 'ifelse' method would return the jQuery
> object unmodified.
>
I like that. You could then use it like this:
$(...).ifelse(':visible', ifCallback).doOtherStuff();
$(...).ifelse(':visible', ifCallback, elseCallback).doOtherStuff();
$(...).ifelse(':visible', null, elseCallback).doOtherStuff();
I'll put that in, if noone objects :-)
-- Jörn
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
