jQuery instanceof Function => true
jQuery.prototype instanceof Function => false
Both ‘bind’ methods do what they are intended to do and do not
interfere with each other.
On Jul 22, 8:10 pm, aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see your points. Since jQuery.prototype.bind exists it overrides
> Function.prototype.bind. Gotcha.
>
> What I'm really trying to get at is if this community feels the
> following is clear, and if not, is it worth the trouble to change it?
>
> > jQuery(someElement).bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
>
> So far it sounds like we feel this is good enough.
>
> On Jul 22, 10:05 am, Scott González <scott.gonza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
> > is not in the context of a function).
>
> > Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
> > nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
> > just because a function exists on some other global object like
> > Function, String, Date, etc.
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:11 am, aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since jQuery itself is a function, jQuery.bind gives the wrong
> > > impression - even though binding jQuery to anything else wouldn't work
> > > anyway.
>
> > > On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've been watching this thread from afar and I don't really get it.
> > > > This is OO programming and it's quite common to have different classes
> > > > having methods with the same name but different semantic (obviously
> > > > since,
> > > > again, they are different classes).
>
> > > > someFunction.bind() has semantic within the Function world,
> > > > jQuery.bind()
> > > > has semantic within the jQuery world.
>
> > > > I mean, I wouldn't mind a .reverse() method for a string, an array or a
> > > > video, perfectly knowing they obviously wouldn't behave the same.
>
> > > > Unless a new pure Object method appears which name clashes with jQuery,
> > > > I
> > > > see no reason to break backward compatibility to circumvent what
> > > > happens to
> > > > be a feature in an OO programming language. Aren't we thinking a little
> > > > "Pascal" here? ;)
>
> > > > 2009/7/14 aHeckman <aaron.heckm...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > > With the inclusion of Function.prototype.bind in ECMAscript 5, I'd
> > > > > like to open discussion around possibly modifying the API around bind/
> > > > > unbinding events. I feel changing jQuery would help keep it's API
> > > > > cleaner. For example, the following seems dirty and will cause
> > > > > unnecessary confusion:
>
> > > > > jQuery.bind('click', someFunction.bind(this));
>
> > > > > Maybe listen/unlisten, watch/unwatch, or something similar would be
> > > > > better.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
