Well, if someone really needs a quick *intermediate* solution it can
be done by inserting checks with search and replace. I didn't think it
through properly at all but it seems to work if you execute these in
order (except for the loop around line 3757, where a semicolon should
be removed after `add( j, this );`). Don't try it on any other script,
this is only intended for the current (1.3.2) release!
loop with braces:
(for \( (var )?([^\n]+) in ([^\n]+)\) {)
$1 if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue }
single line loop without braces:
(for \( (var )?([^\n{]+) in ([^\n{]+)\) )(?!{)([^;]+;)
$1{ if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue } \n $5 }
multiline loop without braces:
(for \( (var )?([^\n{]+) in ([^\n{]+)\))[^ ]
$1 { if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue } \n $5 }
Here's a modified version: http://pastebin.com/m731b1dff
On Apr 24, 1:13 pm, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> we all then nicely agree, no flames here ;o)
>
> still we have no solution to Captain P. and other jQuery well wishers
> who have inherited legacy javascript apps and who want to refactor
> them using jQ only.
> while having to keep the legacy app running ...
>
> -- DBJ
>
> On Apr 23, 11:06 am, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > @DBJ I know what you mean and I talked about this ages ago in my 5 cents
> > about javascript prototypal inheritance ...
>
> > Summary, respecting Mozilla convention for other Array cases (forEach,
> > filter, some, map, etc):
>
> > Object.prototype.forIn = function(callback, self){
> > for(var key in this){
> > if(this.hasOwnProperty(key))
> > callback.call(self, this[key], key, this);
> > };
>
> > };
>
> > // simple test case
> > Object.prototype.a = 1;
> > ({b:2}).forIn(function(value, key, object){
> > alert(key);
>
> > });
>
> > Above forIn prototype could be the "de-facto" standard for every library
> > then we'll find some clever guru that will overwrite that prototype causing
> > "disasters" ... the same could be relying the hasOwnProperty method ... it
> > could be redefined from other silly developers.
>
> > As summary, due to the dynamic nature of the language, Object.prototype is
> > untouchable but if a library touches it we all should "sign" a deal:
> > hasOwnProperty has to be the native one so we can all use that method for
> > each "for in" call (slowing down consistently every browser ... so again, do
> > not touch the Object.prototype or you gonna have troubles)
>
> > Regards
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > @Andrea
>
> > > Captains text is the best example why you are not supposed to say :
> > > " ... for people that use obtrusive code that changes the
> > > Object.prototype..."
>
> > > Faced with a javascript royal mess he inherited, Captain P. trusted
> > > that jQuery is the way to go. But now his trust is somewhat less
> > > prominent...
>
> > > Me or you or Captain P. we surely will not extend Object.prototype,
> > > but still we need jQuery that will work in the presence of a code that
> > > does this. We do not need to be talled that Object.prototype should
> > > never be extended.
>
> > > So jQ team, just go ahead and do it ;o) ... There are tons of legacy
> > > javascript out there with Object.prototype abused comprehensively.
> > > Right now none of it can be replaced with jjQuery.
>
> > > --DBJ
>
> > > On Apr 22, 2:30 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I did not know a native hasOwnProperty method as boolean condition could
> > > > cause so many troubles but I simply replied to Captain Palapa. It was
> > > > not
> > > a
> > > > suggestion for Sizzle, just a quick fix for people that use obtrusive
> > > code
> > > > that changes the Object.prototype.
> > > > But, obviously, if Sizzle uses for in everywhere, well ... that is just
> > > the
> > > > top of the iceberg :-)
>
> > > > Regards
>
> > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I tough of that, seemingly obvious ... but I think it has not
> > > > > worketh ...
>
> > > > > Also this will require a non trivial jQ+Sizzle refactoring. Lot of
> > > > > testing, etc ... Me thinks ?
>
> > > > > -- DBJ
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 9:01 am, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Have you tried this already?
>
> > > > > > 1585: if (Expr.filter.hasOwnProperty(type) &&
> > > (match =
> > > > > > Expr.match[type].exec(expr)) !=
>
> > > > > > > > > null) {
>
> > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02 PM, CaptainPalapa <
> > > [email protected]
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Are there any solutions to this issue yet? We're reworking our
> > > entire
> > > > > > > framework that (prior to my arrival) was a mess of Prototype,
> > > > > > > ColdFusion CFAjax stuff, Spry, you name it. We're slowly
> > > > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > other code with jQuery calls, but it's not going to be an
> > > > > > > overnight
> > > > > > > process...and we still have to keep the existing site running.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > noConflict() doesn't completely solve all our issues, but sure
> > > > > > > made
> > > a
> > > > > > > big difference.
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 28, 2:51 am, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > First: Ok, I will not. It looks silly I know.
>
> > > > > > > > Second + Third :
>
> > > > > > > > -- I do never extend object prototype myself. But 50% of
> > > javascript
> > > > > > > > users will. As soon as they find some "awesome" snippets on the
> > > net.
> > > > > > > > The point here is not what me and you (or unavoidable Daniel)
> > > know
> > > > > > > > and do with jQ.
> > > > > > > > The point is what majority of jQuery customers do and will
> > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > My voluntary contribution is to point out what I think
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > jQuery public will experience, not us (aka "experts" ;o)
> > > > > > > > Same as my discusion about context logic: I know what it is
> > > and
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > > is it to be used etc. But at least 50% of jQuery customers will
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > never ever
> > > > > > > > use the context in $() call or will use it but in a wrong
> > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > Exactly the same is with Object.prototype.
> > > > > > > > So when real non expert jQuery customer (which is not me ;o)
> > > posts
> > > > > > > > a finding,
> > > > > > > > the last thing I want you John (and Daniel ;o) to do is to
> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > anything along the lines: "this is a wrong question to ask"..
> > > > > > > > And I do not want you to do this because I think jQuery is
> > > very
> > > > > > > > good AND equaly importantly has good people "inside".
> > > > > > > > Also there is a small matter of a typical jQ users blaming
> > > > > > > > jQ
> > > for
> > > > > > > > their inexperience. As I am sure you are experiencing every day.
> > > > > > > > There are already blogs where managrs complain how jQ enbaled
> > > > > pages
> > > > > > > > are becoming slower etc.
> > > > > > > > Some of them also blog about their developers not using
> > > > > > > > context
> > > or
> > > > > > > > some other examples of bad Javascript and/or jQ usage.
> > > > > > > > But most of them do not blog about having bad web developers.
> > > > > > > > And that leaves bad impression (undeservedly) on jQ.
> > > > > > > > I think 90% of jQ users until few months ago have been
> > > > > > > > Web Designers who found out about
> > > $("#mydiv").hide("slow").show
> > > > > > > > ("slow") and got excited ;o)
> > > > > > > > With my findings , I just might to help deal with that kind of
> > > jQ
> > > > > > > > users. Which are making, I am affraid, far more than 50% of jQ
> > > users
> > > > > > > > population.
>
> > > > > > > > Enough of ranting ;o)
>
> > > > > > > > It seems (obvious?) to me jQuery.each () is where you arleady
> > > have
> > > > > > > > solved the "extending Object.prototype" problem, (as you
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > know)?
> > > > > > > > Have length property and use it always, to iterate over jQ
> > > internal
> > > > > > > > objects. Same as you do with jQ itself ...
>
> > > > > > > > So, jq.1.3.2 line # 1584 becomes :
>
> > > > > > > > 1584: for (var type = 0; type <
> > > Expr.filter.length;
> > > > > j+
> > > > > > > > +) {
>
> > > > > > > > ...
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 6:30 pm, John Resig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > First, please don't use all-caps in your email subjects.
>
> > > > > > > > > Second, Yes, this is known - and it's highly recommended that
> > > you
> > > > > > > > > don't extend Object.prototype - it'll do far more than break
> > > > > jQuery.
>
> > > > > > > > > Third, it's something that we're looking into for the future,
> > > but
> > > > > > > > > please don't do it, regardless of the state of jQuery.
>
> > > > > > > > >http://erik.eae.net/archives/2005/06/06/22.13.54/
>
> > > > > > > > > --John
>
> > > > > > > > > 2009/3/27 DBJDBJ <[email protected]>:
>
> > > > > > > > > > I have found this:
>
> > > > > > > > > > If I do this, in a global scope :
>
> > > > > > > > > > Object.prototype.any_method = function () {}
>
> > > > > > > > > > Then Sizzle fails.
>
> > > > > > > > > > [ jQuery.1.3.2 (uncompressed) ]
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1583: while (expr && set.length) {
> > > > > > > > > > 1584: for (var type in Expr.filter) {
> > > > > > > > > > 1585: if ((match =
> > > > > Expr.match[type].exec(expr)) !=
> > > > > > > > > > null) {
> > > > > > > > > > 1586: var filter = Expr.filter[type],
> > > > > found,
> > > > > > > > > > item;
> > > > > > > > > > 1587: anyFound = false;
> > > > > > > > > > 1588:
> > > > > > > > > > 1589: if (curLoop == result) {
> > > > > > > > > > 1590: result = [];
> > > > > > > > > > 1591: }
>
> > > > > > > > > > Line 1585 , causes an exception "Object does not support
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > property
> > > > > > > > > > or method".
> > > > > > > > > > This is because Expr.match[type].exec is "undefined", when
> > > type
> > > > > ==
> > > > > > > > > > any_method
> > > > > > > > > > An it inevitably will become that because of the
> > > > > > > > > > Object.protoype.any_method "extension" ...
>
> > > > > > > > > > In the presence of jQuery (Sizzle) users should be able to
> > > add
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > to Object prototype, I think ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
