> This is all well and good but the document does not make > this at all clear. I would not have fallen into this trap if > it was documented well.
Point taken, Adam. The documentation could certainly use improvement on that point. > I also would never have expected that calling a find method on > on anything would ever modify the thing that I was calling it on. Although .find() does modify jQuery's internal node list, I agree the verb "find" doesn't usually imply modification. There is some irony that jQuery's methods like .remove() and .empty() actually *don't* change the object's internal node list--they only remove the nodes from the document tree. All this needs to be addressed either by documentation or changes to the behavior. > In Ruby, it is a convention that distructive methods are appended > with bang (!). So that var.replace(foo, bar) returns a new string > with the appropriate replacments but var.replace!(foo, bar) modifies > the value of var directly. Its unfortunate that this is not possible > in javascript, although perhaps using something like me.find$() > would be sufficiently indicative. That's an interesting idea. Since $ has been done to death, perhaps it could use a trailing underscore? I think that's the only remaining special character left. Alternatively, it could use a trailing capital letter like X to indicate it changed the object. _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
