Thanks for the quick answer and good explanation, John! I had not
thought about the many types of objects (natives, nodes, etc) where
this would certainly be weird and problematic. Limiting this seems
quite sensible.
Though, because one further argument will be a lot less work for me
than adapting all my code to this change, i am curious whether you
were ever had trouble with deep extending Functions. I'm probably
overlooking something, but i don't see offhand the harm in that. Any
chance you consider adding jQuery.isFunction alongside
jQuery.isPlainObject and jQuery.isArray in the current implementation?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was an intentional change. We found that when doing a deep extend
> on non-objects (and I mean that in the "plain object" and "plain
> array" sense) a lot of unexpected behavior was encountered. We only
> deep extend "plain object"s and "plain array"s now (those that match
> jQuery.isPlainObject or jQuery.isArray) any other objects are left
> alone and that's helped to resolve a number of bizarre issues.
>
> I don't feel as if it's inconsistent between jQuery.extend(fn, obj)
> and deep extending - in the case of deep extending there are many
> different possible types of objects that could be extended in
> inappropriate ways but in the case of jQuery.extend(fn, obj) you're
> being very explicit: You're asking to absolutely extend what's being
> passed in.
>
> Regardless, I'm making a note of it in the documentation and in the
> release notes too.
>
> --John
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Nathan Bubna <nbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looks like the new $.extend implementation doesn't let you recursively
>> extend a function anymore:
>>
>> // create function w/properties
>> var T = $.test = function() { alert(T.prop ? 'good' : 'bad'); };
>> $.extend(T, { prop: false });
>>
>> // elsewhere, do deep configuration
>> $.extend(true, $, {
>> test: {
>> prop: true
>> }
>> });
>>
>> // uh oh!
>> console.log($.test);
>> $.test();
>>
>> I often use this pattern (func w/props) to reduce conceptual area and
>> namespace clutter. I can work around this by directly manipulating
>> the properties ($.test.prop = true), but that becomes quite unwieldy
>> given the number of properties and the way i pass config objects
>> around.
>>
>> In either case, it seems inconsistent to allow functions to be
>> extended directly ($.extend($.test, {prop:true})), but not when doing
>> a deep, recursive extend call. Was this an intended change or have i
>> found a bug?
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
--
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.
