I started the thread, so I tested you solution and for me It's working great.
Thank you. On Dec 31 2009, 10:19 pm, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > I added in jQuery.proxy( obj, name ) support as well (I like this - I > also showed how to do it in Secrets of the JavaScript > Ninja:http://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/1d2b1a57dae0b73b3d99197f73f4ed... > > Any major concerns before I push this through? Will this meet the > needs of everyone in the thread? > > --John > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:39 AM, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So I definitely agree that having a single, one-off, API addition (to > > bind and live) is kind of lame - especially when it conflicts with the > > jQuery way of defining the methods (having a non-callback argument > > being last). > > > I sat down and wrote up a quick jQuery.bind() but found one critical > > issue that was not resolved by the hitch/bind/fn.prototype.bind > > technique: You can't (easily) unbind a function that has a different > > scope defined. > > > For example: > > > function foo(){} > > .bind( "click", foo.bind(someObject) ); > > .unbind( "click", foo /* errr.... we actually need to save the fn > > somewhere */ ); > > > jQuery has already solved this problem internally using our > > jQuery.event.proxy method - and, in fact, if I were to land a > > jQuery.bind() it would end up using jQuery.event.proxy(). But if you > > look at jQuery.event.proxy() you can see that, in reality, we could > > just be using that method and skip this whole dance entirely. For > > example (and this works today, in jQuery 1.3.2): > > > function foo(){} > > .bind( "click", jQuery.event.proxy( foo, someObject ) ); > > .unbind( "click", foo ); > > > Save for the sugar that hitch provides I can't see any reason to not > > just promote jQuery.event.proxy() to jQuery.proxy() and make it an > > officially supported part of the jQuery API. > > > Filed:http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/5736 > > Landed (in a branch, for review and further discussion): > >http://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/66975de2d249643779e2b3daad0457... > > > --John > > > For fun, here is the jQuery.bind() that I quickly wrote (that DOESN'T > > use jQuery.proxy): > > > diff --git a/src/core.js b/src/core.js > > index 944e8a9..1908123 100644 > > --- a/src/core.js > > +++ b/src/core.js > > @@ -614,6 +614,20 @@ jQuery.extend({ > > return ret.concat.apply( [], ret ); > > }, > > > + bind: function( scope, fn ) { > > + if ( scope ) { > > + if ( typeof fn === "string" ) { > > + fn = scope[ fn ]; > > + } > > + > > + if ( fn ) { > > + return function() { > > + return fn.apply( scope, arguments ); > > + }; > > + } > > + } > > + }, > > + > > // Use of jQuery.browser is frowned upon. > > // More details:http://docs.jquery.com/Utilities/jQuery.browser > > browser: { > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> This is exactly what I was getting at... With regard to event handler > >> .bind() and fn.bind() > > >> So far with my $.hitch tests, the one thing I dislike is the argument > >> structure. It does what it should but I'd much prefer > >> a function.prototype.bind() if given the choice. > > >> -- Sent from my Palm Prē > >> ________________________________ > >> ajpiano wrote: > > >> I love the idea of extending scope manipulation to any function, > >> rather than only event handlers. Callbacks to ajax requests often > >> need a better scope than the XHR, and while I look forward to 1.4's > >> functionality for event handlers, it would really be a shame to > >> continue to force people to use non-jQuery solutions for full scope > >> manipulation. > > >> That said, and while I do love (and frequently recommend) $.hitch, I > >> prefer an approach more like Prototype or Underscore's that doesn't > >> involve passing so many strings. > > >> --adam > > >> On Dec 29, 3:45 pm, Peter Higgins <phigg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> It is a short-port of Dojo's dojo.hitch(). The only thing it doesn't do > >>> that Dojo's does is currying the arguments in the original hitched > >>> function, eg: > > >>> // a bad example off the top of my head > >>> var x = $(".nodes"); > >>> var clicker = $.hitch(x, "bind", "click"); > > >>> clicker(function(e){ > >>> // this just called $(.nodes").bind("click", arguments[0]) > > >>> }); > > >>> It would be another few bytes to support that. dojo.partial is equally > >>> as neat. > > >>> Regards, > >>> Peter > > >>> Rick Waldron wrote: > >>> > $.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 > >>> > <mailto: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 > >>> > <mailto: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 > >>> > <mailto: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> > >>> > <mailto: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, > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
