Yeah this looks good Peter. This should be in core IMHO. BTW, you're running for president? LOL
On Dec 29, 9:24 am, Peter Higgins <phigg...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... 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 > > athttp://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.
