How about "thisObject"? Taken from Mozilla's docs for the forEach method ( https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Objects:Array:forEach). -- Brandon Aaron
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Michael Geary <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't find this feature all that useful myself, since my callback > functions tend to be a mix of jQuery/DOM, setTimeout, Google Maps/Earth, > and > other asynchronous APIs. If I can only bind an object to a callback in one > of those types of APIs and not the others - or if they each sprout > independent ways of doing it - I may as well just use a closure so I have > one way to handle them all. > > But I've seen that a lot of people do like this capability, so I certainly > don't object to it, unless of course it slows down my own code. > > My one request: please do not call it "scope"! Not in the code, not in the > comments, and not in the docs. > > JavaScript has something called scope, and you create it by nesting > functions lexically (or using the "with" statement). Setting the "this" > value for an event or other callback isn't related in the slightest to > scope. > > If you need a name for the concept, you could describe it as "binding an > object to the event handler" or - probably better - "calling the event > handler as a method of an object". I don't know of a short and sweet word > for it, but "scope" is already taken. :-) > > Thanks, > > -Mike > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
