Keep in mind that the namespacing that I'm suggesting is solely for
readability, and should only be used where it makes things more readable.
You're right that it might put some bumps into the chaining, but I think
that making the calls non-colliding and more natural-language-y outweighs
that.
e.g.:
$( '.b0rp' ).filter( '#blap' ).on.click( function() { $( '#foo'
).ajax.load( ... ) } );
To me, it just kind of looks like the functions have a dot in them. One
could substitute an underscore for the same effect, so it wouldn't really
be "namespaced", but would still read nicely, and not be conterintuitive
wrt chaining.
If we do decide to use namespacing in this way, I'd want to lay some
ground rules down. Specifically, only one level max, and the name must be
4 letters or less. Again, we should preserve terseness.
- Brian
> Not too keen on namespacing (is it really required? will make the code
> more verbose and chaining could become confusing), but I agree that if
> the API changes that much it should be a 2.0 release rather than 1.x.
> Breaking changes should be the first thing people see before
> downloading (or maybe second after saying why it should be
> downloaded).
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
