I'm ok to retract this request (and offer to do the work).
I've been educated about what "use a closure" meant in the context of
a working pastie solution.
Inside the closure the happy jquery code runs oblivious to the
possible reuse of $ elsewhere. Use one of these per library, for
I'll close the ticket.
On Jan 31, 5:13 pm, Dr Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it doesn't have to be the $ feature - this can be cleanly
> noconflict-proofed; giving some useful benefits.
> I'm still keen to see this refactoring as I think its a Good Thing.
> On Jan 31, 9:17 am, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Right so there are some frameworks that will never work together, and
> > > there are some frameworks that could work together with a little
> > > love'n'care to prototypejs.
> > The question remains: how will we ever know which ones ? The
> > frameworks which are self contained will always work. The others won't
> > necessarily, and we don't have proper means to test which that.
> > I'd also like to add that, afaik, the only libs concerned by $ are
> > jQuery - which sports a noConflict mode - and mootools, which extends
> > native prototypes about as much as we do - so there would most
> > certainly be conflicts there.
> > I personally don't think it is reasonable to release a feature which,
> > by design, is and always will be incomplete. But that's just my $ .02
> > and isn't necessarily a view shared by everyone in core.
> > Best,
> > Tobie
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at