I don't think the actual approach is too ugly. It's generic and fits any
situation.
This could do (on this specific case):
$('#foo').fadeOut( 'normal', jQuery.remove });
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM, mike.helgeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> I agree with you, just wanted to through some ideas into the mix, but
> do you agree that this is "unelegant code"
>
> $('#foo').fadeOut('normal',function(){ $(this).remove(); });
>
> Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I think the last option I
> provided is the most realistic and I think that making it clear that
> you may only apply a single jquery method without arguments is within
> reason. It is just a shortcut, and you can use a whole function
> wrapper if you want to do something else.
>
>
>
> On Oct 3, 1:34 pm, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
> >
>
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
