My concern is mostly the confusion that it will cause with less experienced developers that are using jQuery... Perhaps I'm just over thinking the situation. I just can't past the thought that bind() and bind() might confuse some (especially since they do different tasks, unlike indexOf() and indexOf() that do the same thing but for a string or an array)
I'm also not really interested in debating something that's just an opinion. Rick On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Karl Swedberg <k...@englishrules.com> wrote: > Hi Rick, > I don't understand how this is problematic. jQuery's bind() is a method of > jQuery.prototype, not Function.prototype. And it's not like jQuery has never > had method names that are the same as native JavaScript method names; > slice() comes to mind. > > Maybe you're concerned about potential confusion? > > --Karl > > ____________ > Karl Swedberg > www.englishrules.com > www.learningjquery.com > > > > > On Sep 5, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > I hate to be the one that brings this up, but I feel it should be > mentioned: Regardless of what your write here, bind() is problematic in the > long run: > > > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/drafts/tc39-2009-025.pdf > > Jump to the pdf page 128 (the actual document page # is 114) > > > I've recently been working on an elegant feature detection/argument type > conditional patch for this issue. Ideally the solution i'm working towards > is one that will allow jQuery's current bind() unbind() to work as it does, > but also allow the correct Function.prototype.bind() usage > > Rick > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Oleg Slobodskoi <oleg...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> Your way is not shorter as this one, and such case, were you need to >> bind a lot of different events with different handler to the same >> element, is not very often. In the most cases you want to bind >> different events to different elements. If you are binding to the same >> element a lot of events you can also do all your actions in one >> handler by checking the e.type. >> >> $("#myID").click( function(e) { >> // handle click >> }) >> . mouseover( function(e) { >> // handle mouseover >> }) >> . mouseout : function(e) { >> // handle mouseout >> }); >> >> On Sep 3, 10:37 pm, KeeganWatkins <keeganwatk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > First, this conversation started on the learningjquery.com blog >> > (http://www.learningjquery.com/2009/06/shorthand-methods-for-unbind). >> > >> > Ideally, I'd like to see the bind and unbind methods accept an object >> > of eventType/handler pairs, such that a single wrapped set could take >> > a hash of bindings in a single call. Something along these lines: >> > >> > (function($) { >> > >> > // Keep a copy of the old methods >> > $.fn._bind = $.fn.bind; >> > $.fn._unbind = $.fn.unbind; >> > >> > // Redefine $().bind() >> > $.fn.bind = function( type, data, fn ) { >> > // If only a map of handlers was passed... >> > return (arguments.length === 1) ? >> > >> > this.each(function(key, node) { >> > // Iterate over the map... >> > $.each(type, function(event, handler) { >> > event == "unload" ? >> > // ... using $.fn.one() for "unload" >> events... >> > $(this).one(event, handler) : >> > // ... and $.event.add() for others >> > jQuery.event.add( this, event, handler >> ); >> > }); >> > }) : >> > >> > // Otherwise, use the existing implementation as of 1.3.2, >> > // with slight syntactic modifications >> > this.each(function(key, node) { >> > type == "unload" ? >> > // Use $.fn.one() for "unload" events... >> > $(this).one(type, fn) : >> > // ... and $.event.add() for others >> > jQuery.event.add( this, type, fn || data, fn && >> data ); >> > }); >> > >> > }; >> > >> > // Redefine $().unbind() >> > $.fn.unbind = function(type, fn) { >> > // If only a map of handlers was passed... >> > return (arguments.length === 1) >> > >> > this.each(function(){ >> > // Iterate over the map... >> > $.each(type, function(event, handler) { >> > // ... and unbind each using event.remove() >> > jQuery.event.remove( this, event, handler ); >> > }); >> > }) : >> > >> > // Otherwise, use the existing implementation as of 1.3.2, >> > // copied verbatim >> > this.each(function(){ >> > jQuery.event.remove( this, type, fn ); >> > }); >> > >> > }; >> > })(jQuery); >> > >> > Usage would be as follows: >> > $("#myID").bind({ >> > click : function(e) { >> > // handle click >> > }, >> > mouseover : function(e) { >> > // handle mouseover >> > }, >> > mouseout : function(e) { >> > // handle mouseout >> > } >> > >> > }); >> > >> > Or, with named functions (ideal for later use of $().unbind()): >> > $("#myID").bind({ >> > click : clickHandler, >> > mouseover : mouseoverHandler, >> > mouseout : mouseoutHandler >> > >> > }); >> > >> > function clickHandler(e) { >> > // handle click >> > >> > } >> > >> > function mouseoverHandler(e) { >> > // handle mouseover >> > >> > } >> > >> > function mouseoutHandler(e) { >> > // handle mouseout >> > >> > } >> > >> > With named function references, unbinding multiple events would be >> > simple: >> > $("#myID").unbind({ >> > click : clickHandler, >> > mouseover : mouseoverHandler, >> > mouseout : mouseoutHandler >> > >> > }); >> > >> > I realize there are some potential issues, such as the ability to pass >> > custom data to $().bind() is lost when an object of event/handler >> > pairs is passed. I personally don't usually use it anyhow, and binding >> > events individually will still support custom data (as the >> > implementation is the same). >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
