Just a bit clunky.
To me clunky is a overly long calling sequence this or this.id is easy to pass.
"#"+this.id is more clunky....
when you put the more clunky expressions inside a function you can
re-used 'proven' code.
Just the advice from an seasoned(salty) programmer!
"the less you type in your programs , the less that can go wrong!"
On 1/14/07, Miles Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can pass 'this' but using ("#"+this.id) was the way to do it with the
> least code written. Inside the function I need to check the first 4 letters
> of the ID string of the calling element to determine how to proceed, as well
> as use the id as an element reference for the jQuery object. So it's either
> pass that or use 'this' and inside the function:
>
> checkid = $(id).attr("id").substring(0,4)
>
> and then use checkid in comparisons. But I thought creating the extra object
> inside the function to carry this was wasteful.
>
> Since passing the concated '#id' string works without further modification
> inside the function it seemed like the best way to go about it. I'm not a
> particularly skilled JS developer though, so perhaps the best practice is to
> keep shenanigans like that inside the function? If it's hackish perhaps I'll
> find it doesn't always work in the future.
>
> Cheers
> Miles
>
>
>
> On 1/14/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a bit clunky! just pass in this! and let checkState do the dirty
> > work... if it is actually needed!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
> > _______________________________________________
> > jQuery mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://jquery.com/discuss/
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jQuery mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>
>
>
--
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
