Thanks Kevin and Bob (I totally forgot about merge), but I agree that
trying to use Mochikit to further simplify this pretty simple function
is a bit overkill.
Also thanks Morten; I totally forgot to account for the cases you
mentioned. However, I disagree with you on the case-naming of
Mochikit's tag functions; personally, I love being able to write code
like:
TABLE({},
TR({},
TD({} ...
and it wouldn't be as clean if instead I had to write:
MochiKit.elements.table({},
MochiKit.elements.tr({},
MochiKit.elements.td({} ...
or even:
elements.table({},
elements.tr({},
elements.td({} ...
Besides, if you want that kind of syntax, you can always just do:
var elements = {table:TABLE, tr:TR, td:TD, ... etc.};
If I can find the time I'll submit a patch with these new INPUT sub-
type functions sometime this week, in case anyone else wants them.
I'm thinking I'll stick with standard naming convention for createDOM
functions (CHECKBOX, HIDDEN, etc.) except for buttons, which I'll do
as INPUTBUTTON to distinguish it from the BUTTON element.
Jeremy
On Dec 18, 4:29 am, Morten Barklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just wanted to add, that this function here:
>
> function CHECKBOX(){
> arguments[0]["type"] = "checkbox";
> return INPUT.apply(this, arguments);
>
> }
>
> Does not work if you just call it like CHECKBOX() or with any other
> non-object first argument.
>
> It should probably be:
>
> function CHECKBOX(){
> arguments[0] = MochiKit.Base.update(arguments[0],{type:"checkbox"});
> return INPUT.apply(this, arguments);
>
> }
>
> As some has suggested already. Or simply ensure an object:
>
> function CHECKBOX(){
> if (typeof arguments[0] != "object") arguments[0] = {};
> arguments[0]["type"] = "checkbox";
> return INPUT.apply(this, arguments);
>
> }
>
> And actually this is not correct still, as createDOM has this note:
>
> For convenience, if attrs is a string, null is used and the string will
> be considered the first node.
>
> Thus you need to check if arg 0 is string, and if so, prepend an empty
> object:
>
> function CHECKBOX(){
> var args = MochiKit.Base.extend(arguments);
> if (typeof arguments[0] == "string") args.shift({});
> elseif (typeof arguments[0] != "object") args[0] = {};
> args[0]["type"] = "checkbox";
> return INPUT.apply(this, args);
>
> }
>
> I know, that INPUT's cannot have a text child, but not still supporting
> this "convenience" feature would still be considered bad in my opinion.
>
> The naming of these shorthand-functions however is not very nice. They
> should be named in lowercase, but just be kept on some common object for
> easy access and to avoid conflicts. The CAPS thing is really... not nice. :)
>
> --
> Morten Barklund - Head of Development - TBWA\PLAY
>
> Kevin Damm wrote:
> > Good point, and yeah - I hadn't considered needing to pass the other
> > arguments to apply().
>
> > You're probably right about the overhead in using merge or update, and
> > I had thought about efficiency issues when writing that response. I
> > thought it would look more like MochiKit, as machineghost asked, but
> > sometimes you use a hammer so much everything begins to look like
> > nails.
>
> > Thanks, Bob, for the great toolkit!
>
> > - Kevin
>
> > On Dec 17, 2007 2:11 PM, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It still wouldn't work because you need the arguments object, not
> >> arguments[0], for the call to apply.
>
> >> My personal preference would be to use merge because it wouldn't
> >> mutate the input object you give it, but there are potential
> >> efficiency concerns with all that extra overhead. The original
> >> solution was probably fine. MochiKit isn't a replacement for
> >> JavaScript, you shouldn't try and wedge it in everywhere just because
> >> it might be possible :)
>
> >> -bob
>
> >> On 12/17/07, Kevin Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Oops, that should probably be arguments[0]
>
> >>> On Dec 17, 2007 2:00 PM, Kevin Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Maybe use MochiKit.Base.merge or MochiKit.Base.update:
>
> >>>> function CHECKBOX() {
> >>>> return INPUT.apply(this, update(arguments, {'type': "checkbox"}));
> >>>> }
>
> >>>> - Kevin
>
> >>>> On Dec 17, 2007 1:30 PM, machineghost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> I recently found myself doing this a lot:
> >>>>> var a = INPUT({type:"textbox"});
> >>>>> var b = INPUT({type:"checkbox"});
> >>>>> var c = INPUT({type:"hidden"});
> >>>>> etc.
>
> >>>>> So I wanted to make short-hand functions like CHECKBOX and HIDDEN
> >>>>> which would work exactly like INPUT, only with a pre-specified type.
> >>>>> At first I thought I could do this:
> >>>>> CHECKBOX = createDOMFunc("input", {type:"checkbox"});
>
> >>>>> but that eliminated all other attributes (since the {type:"checkbox"}
> >>>>> replaced my attributes argument). I played around a bit, and
> >>>>> eventually found that I could make it work with:
> >>>>> function CHECKBOX(){
> >>>>> arguments[0]["type"] = "checkbox";
> >>>>> return INPUT.apply(this, arguments);
> >>>>> }
>
> >>>>> But that doesn't seem very MochiKit-ish to me, so I was wondering if
> >>>>> there was a cleaner way to do the above using bind or partial or
> >>>>> something. Also, I was curious as to how people feel about these
> >>>>> short-hand functions, and whether or not they'd be useful enough to
> >>>>> include in MochiKit.DOM.
>
> >>>>> Any thoughts/feedback would be appreciated.
> >>>>> Jeremy
>
> >>>>> So my question is, is th
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MochiKit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
