Whoops, Google formatted my examples in a funny way. Here they are
again (hopefully more readable):
CHECKBOX() ==
INPUT({"type":"checkbox"});
CHECKBOX(obj) ==
update(obj,{type:"checkbox"}); INPUT(obj);
CHECKBOX("someString") ==
INPUT({type:"checkbox", name: "someString"});
Jeremy
On Jan 22, 6:39 pm, machineghost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it took awhile, but I finally got around to completing my revised
> INPUT short-hand functions. They can be used as follows:
>
> CHECKBOX() // equivalent to: INPUT({"type":"checkbox"});
> CHECKBOX(object) // equivalent to: update(object,
> {"type":"checkbox"}); INPUT(object);
> CHECKBOX("someString") // equivalent to: INPUT({"type":"checkbox",
> "name": "someString"});
>
> As you may have noticed, these functions work basically the same as
> any other createDOM function, except when there is only a single
> string argument. Normally this string would become the first child
> node, but since an input can never have child nodes, I decided to make
> it the name of the resulting INPUT.
>
> The reason I went with the INPUT's name (as opposed to its value or
> id) was that I personally can see lots of cases where you'd need to
> create an INPUT with only a type and name, but very few cases where
> you'd create an INPUT with only a type and a value (or id). However,
> I may just be missing something obvious, so I'd be curious to hear if
> anyone felt there was a better way to handle the single string
> argument case.
>
> Also, while most of the shorthand functions are just their type in
> uppercase, the one exception was the function for buttons. Since
> there is an HTML element called "button" (and thus a Mochikit.DOM
> function called "BUTTON"), I decided to call the shorthand function
> for an INPUT of type "button", FORMBUTTON. I think this pretty
> clearly differentiates it, but I could instead have gone with
> INPUTBUTTON or IBUTTON or something else; again, if anyone has any
> thoughts on this I'd love to hear them.
>
> I've included the code for these functions below, but if there's a
> desire to add them to Mochikit I would be happy to submit a formal
> patch. If not ... well then they'll be here in the list archives for
> anyone who wants to use them :-)
>
> Jeremy
>
> *** CODE ***
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.createINPUTFunc */
> createINPUT: function (type, otherattrs) {
> var m = MochiKit.Base;
> if(typeof otherattrs == "string")
> return MochiKit.DOM.createDOM("input", {"name":otherattrs});
> var attrs = m.update(otherattrs, {"type":type});
> return MochiKit.DOM.createDOM("input", attrs);
>
> }
>
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.createINPUTFunc */
> createINPUTFunc: function (/* type, otherattrs */) {
> var m = MochiKit.Base;
> return m.partial.apply(
> this,
> m.extend([MochiKit.DOM.createINPUT], arguments)
> );
>
> }
>
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.FORMBUTTON = */
> this.FORMBUTTON = createINPUTFunc("checkbox");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.CHECKBOX */
> this.CHECKBOX = createINPUTFunc("checkbox");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.FILE */
> this.FILE = createINPUTFunc("file");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.HIDDEN */
> this.HIDDEN = createINPUTFunc("hidden");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.IMAGE */
> this.IMAGE = createINPUTFunc("image");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.PASSWORD */
> this.PASSWORD = createINPUTFunc("password");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.RADIO */
> this.RADIO = createINPUTFunc("radio");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.RESET */
> this.RESET = createINPUTFunc("reset");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.TEXT */
> this.TEXT = createINPUTFunc("text");
> /** @id MochiKit.DOM.SUBMIT */
> this.SUBMIT = createINPUTFunc("submit");
>
> On Dec 18 2007, 9:27 am, machineghost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
