Ah, I've felt the need for that before, although for single uses:
$(sel).applyThis(function(){
this.doSomething();
//do something that would break chaining:
for (x in bacon) { ... };
}).keepChaining
- ricardo
On Dec 18, 3:42 pm, Mark Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
> .each() is fine if you want to iterate through the set.
>
> I'm proposing something different, the ability to work on the set as a
> whole in the same way that a plugin would,
> without having to break out of the chain. Example:
>
> var that = $(selector)
> .doSomething();
>
> if (test) that.doSomethingOptionally();
>
> that.doMoreStuff();
>
> Instead we could do:
>
> $(selector)
> .doSomething()
> .fn(function() {
> if (test) this.doSomethingOptionally();
> return this;
> })
> .doMoreStuff();
>
> Or, for debugging:
>
> $(selector)
> .doSomething()
> .fn(function() { console.log(this.get()); return this; })
> .doMoreStuff();
>
> But the primary use is to make task specific plugins or reusable
> chains without unnecessary pollution of the $.fn namespace. Example:
>
> function addMyStuff() {
> return this.addClass('mine').removeClass('theirs').css
> ('position', 'absolute');
>
> }
>
> Then at any time in my code I just need to do:
>
> $(selector).fn(addMyStuff);
>
> Maybe 'fn' is not a great name. I would like to call it 'apply' but
> that's taken ;(
>
> Regards
> - Mark
>
> On Dec 18, 3:27 pm, "John Resig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How much does this differ from using .each?
>
> > $(selector).each(function() {
> > return $(this).each(myfn) // A function that adds children
> > .children()
> > .each(arguments.callee) // Do the same to the children
> > .end();
>
> > });
>
> > and:
>
> > $(selector).each(myfn,['test']).each(myfn2).each(myfn3);
>
> > The only significant difference that I see is that .each requires that
> > you wrap the 'this' with $(...) - but I think that's a fair price to
> > pay for having API compatibility (your proposed method would be the
> > only jQuery method to not have its 'this' be a DOM node).
>
> > --John
>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Mark Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi, I don't know if this has been suggested before, I couldn't find
> > > anything in this mailing list.
>
> > > I sometimes find it handy to write reusable functions as if they were
> > > $.fn plugins.
> > > Functions that may be used elsewhere but aren't general enough to
> > > actually put in $.fn.
>
> > > Example:
>
> > > function myfn = function(v) {
> > > return this.filter(...).each(function() { ...use arg v for
> > > something... }).end();
> > > };
>
> > > Called like this:
>
> > > myfn.call($(selector), 'test').show();
>
> > > From this I can chain other jQuery functions, but not another similar
> > > style call.
>
> > > I propose a simple addition to jQuery:
>
> > > // Apply a function to a jQuery object, as if it were a plugin
> > > $.fn.fn = function(fn) {
> > > return fn.apply(this, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1));
> > > };
>
> > > So instead, the call becomes:
>
> > > $(selector).fn(myfn,'test').show();
>
> > > and chaining is nicer:
>
> > > $(selector).fn(myfn,'test').fn(myfn2).fn(myfn3);
>
> > > It also allows inline recursive functions (useful for building trees):
>
> > > $(selector).fn(function() {
> > > if (this.length) {
> > > this.fn(myfn) // A function that adds children
> > > .children()
> > > .fn(arguments.callee) // Do the same to the children
> > > .end();
> > > }
> > > return this;
> > > });
>
> > > I know it could just be a plugin, but it is very small and seems
> > > useful enough to add into the core,
> > > and it could encourage developers to program more in the plugin style.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
