[mochikit] Re: New INPUT short-hand functions?
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 mochikit@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[mochikit] Re: New INPUT short-hand functions?
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 mochikit@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[mochikit] Re: New INPUT short-hand functions?
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 mochikit@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[mochikit] Re: New INPUT short-hand functions?
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 mochikit@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[mochikit] New INPUT short-hand functions?
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 mochikit@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[mochikit] Re: Usage of Selector (or bug?)
I'm just testing it and it looks great! Thank you --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to mochikit@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
