A quick example:
$(".msg").each(function(i, $this){
$(".hide", this).click(function(){
$this.hide();
});
});
I actually proposed this set of changes to Yehuda on IM and then had a back
and forth as to how to best implement them. I think they actually hold some
promise. I like this since it's relatively pain-free which helping to reduce
extra syntax (when dealing with closures in jQuery it's common that you'll
need to declare references to the wrapped jQuery set - something that this
avoids).
The proposal is a set of 3 changes - each change is making the second
argument of a callback function equal to $(this).
- Modifying existing callbacks that have no second argument (like .filter,
as Yehuda mentioned).
- Modifying event callbacks to have a second argument be $(this) (which,
can conflict with .trigger(event, data)).
- Modifying each callbacks to have a second argument be $(this) (replacing
the existing second argument of this).
Obviously changing the second incoming argument to .each(function(i,$this))
is going to require a little bit of finesse. I did a quick search on Google
Codesearch but didn't see any immediate warning signs:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=
\.each\%28\s*function\%28\s*\w%2B%2C\s*\w%2B\s*\%29+lang%3Ajavascript&sbtn=Search
If we make a change like this I would like it to be an all-or-nothing
proposition (having a half-baked API modification landing seems kind of
lame) BUT it must be done in a way that we're sure won't break important
code. (At the very least, a change like this would have to be done in a
major 1.x release.)
A quick note: It's probably important to use function(i, $this) in the
examples (to help differentiate it from a "normal" self [which generally
equates to var self = this;]).
--John
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Yehuda Katz <wyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the moment, traversal callbacks, like the ones passed to
> find/filter/etc. take a single "index" parameter. I'd like to propose that
> they are unified with .each as follows:
> $("div").filter(function(i, self) {
> // stuff
> });
>
> As a separate concern, I'd like to discuss changing the second parameter in
> both to be a jQuery object. Obviously, it would need to be done via slow
> deprecation for .each, but I don't think it'd break all that much code:
>
> $("div").filter(function(i, self) {
> // self == $(this)
> })
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Yehuda Katz
> Developer | Engine Yard
> (ph) 718.877.1325
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
