After several iterations this discussion is nearing its (obvious?)
conclusion.
A LISP cond statement . For Lisp-ers COND is a thing of beauty. The
basic syntax of COND is:
(cond ((predicate1) (then do something 1)) ;if this predicate is
true,
;do something1
((predicate2) (then do something 2)) ;if this predicate is
true,
;do something2,
;each predicate and
action
;following the
;first one is optional
(T (else do this)) ;else, if none of the
;predicates returns
;TRUE, do this
)
So, please go ahead and implement jQuery.fn.cond()
What's next? LAMBDA functions as an jQyery plugin ?
Cheers ;o)
--DBJ
On Jun 9, 9:32 am, "stephb...@googlemail.com"
<stephb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This thread got me thinking, as chaining conditions is something I've
> found myself wanting to do occasionally when quickly writing jQuery.
> I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of having the condition affect the
> current chain, though. I'd prefer something more like the event
> helper syntax. Here's my contribution:
>
> jQuery.fn.extend({
> condition: function() {
> for (var i=0; i<arguments.length; i=i+2) {
> if (arguments[i]) {
> this.condition = (arguments[i+1]) ? arguments[i+1]:
> arguments[i];
> this.condition();
> this.condition = jQuery.fn.condition;
> break;
> }
> }
> return this;
> }
>
> });
>
> It allows you to write chainable jQuery conditions thus:
>
> jQuery("#element").condition(condition, fn)
>
> The arguments can contain any number of condition / function pairs
> that act as 'if' and 'else if'. If the final argument is a function
> with no preceding condition
> it acts as 'else'. Inside the function 'this' is the current jQuery
> collection:
>
> jQuery("#element")
> .condition( (x===1), function(){
> this.css({color: 'blue'});
> }), (x===2), function(){
> this.css({color: 'red'});
> }), function(){
> this.css({color: 'green'});
> });
>
> I'm really not sure of the merits of temporarily overwriting the
> condition method to get 'this' to represent the current collection.
> That's probably not clever. Certainly it means you can't put one
> condition inside another. Does anyone know a better way, without
> having to look for an unused name in the jQuery.fn.x namespace?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
