... this is why I keep suggesting making the bind functionality as explicit function call, rather than hidden away in one or two api's:
http://higginsforpresident.net/js/static/jq.hitch.js It does not extend any native prototypes, is useful and a bit magic (with the string->method resolution). Regards, Peter aHeckman wrote: > I too feel relying on a function.prototype.bind implementation would > be the most forward looking but I'm not sure that jives with the > general approach of jQuery: > > jQuery doesn't extend Native.prototype.anything. > > > On Dec 29, 1:12 am, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rick Waldron wrote: >> >>> Available, as in the "scope" argument is being retrofitted to an >>> existing function, and ONLY to that function. >>> >>> I don't get what you are talking about a fn.bind() implementation in >>> jQuery, or what you mean by available in just one function though. >>> >>> Read ES5. >>> >>> function.prototype.bind() >>> >> I already read ES5, I use portions of ES5 in a number of js server-based >> projects already. >> >> However I don't get "ONLY" one function, since the whole point of >> .bind() is to bind a `this` onto ONE function with one call. It's not >> bind otherwise. >> >> So I don't see any limitation. Unless you are under the >> misinterpretation that after you have called .bind() on one function you >> have modified that function and bound it's `this`. .bind() doesn't >> modify the function, it returns a new one. >> From ES5 15.3.4.5 Function.prototype.bind> The bind method takes one or >> more arguments, thisArg and (optionally) >> >>> arg1, arg2, etc, and returns a *new* >>> function object by performing the following steps: >>> >> So this is valid ES5 code. >> >> "use strict"; >> var a = function() { alert(this); }; >> var a1 = a.bind("a"); >> var a2 = a.bind("b"); >> >> a(); // Alerts undefined >> a1(); // Alerts "a" >> a2(); // Alerts "b" >> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Daniel Friesen >>> <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com <mailto:nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I made a post about how confusing people may find the name bind some >>> time ago. Suggested renaming bind to something like event, and keeping >>> bind as an alias of course. That was rejected. >>> >>> I don't get what you are talking about a fn.bind() implementation in >>> jQuery, or what you mean by available in just one function though. >>> >>> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) >>> [http://daniel.friesen.name] >>> >>> Rick Waldron wrote: >>> > John, >>> >>> > While I'm glad to see a scope arg available, i still think this is >>> > negligent to the future of jQuery and ES standards. I really think a >>> > fn.bind() implementation would ideal (since it would be jQuery-wide >>> > and not just available in one function), but as I've noted in >>> the past >>> > and is exampled here, beginners may find this syntax a bit boggling: >>> >>> > $(foo).bind('event', fn.bind(bar) ); >>> >>> > Rick >>> >> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name] >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jQuery Development" group. > To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@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. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@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.
