$.hitch() is a great "fn.bind()" solution, I still want to try a variety of scope related tests, but so far its really solid. I love the fact that you included the exception for a non existent method, I referred to Prototype's latest and there is no such check.
Hats off. Rick On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote: > Agreed, that is slick. As soon as I get back to the office I'm going to > test it, I look forward to this. > > > > > -- Sent from my Palm Prē > > ------------------------------ > aHeckman wrote: > > 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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@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.
