Don't like any of those 2.
The first one is extremmely counter intuitive. While it's "logical" that you
don't want to remove an element right after a fadeOut. You can assume that
any method called after a fadeOut should be delayed.
Same for second. The second could be a method of the dom element, or the
jqueryfied object. Also, what if you want arguments ? you pass them as
additional arguments to fadeOut ? hmmm...
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM, mike.helgeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> I think that maybe this pattern could be improved, but would perhaps
> be counter-intuitive...
>
> $('#foo').fadeOut('normal',function(){ $(this).remove(); });
>
> I would rather write...
>
> $('#foo').fadeOut().remove();
>
> But perhaps would be happy with...
>
> $('#foo').fadeOut('normal','remove');
>
> -mike
>
> On Sep 26, 1:59 pm, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm curious: Are there any pieces of code that use jQuery, right now,
> > that you feel are unelegant or ugly? (Presumably ones that've already
> > been optimized to the best of their ability.)
> >
> > One area of improvement that I was thinking of was something along the
> lines of:
> >
> > // ugly
> > $("#foo").val( $("#bar").val() );
> >
> > // a bit better
> > $("#foo").val( $("#bar") );
> >
> > this would be an easy change, just make .attr() do something like:
> >
> > if ( arg.jquery )
> > val = arg.val() || arg.text() || "";
> >
> > Any other thoughts? I wonder if there are common cases that could be
> > improved with some simple code additions to core.
> >
> > --John
> >
>
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
