Let me summarize this thread so far.
DBJ brought up the idea of a lint for jQuery, which comes up a few
times a year. I mentioned I had posted about that in 2006 and didn't
finish any code to do it. A few people said it was a horrible idea and
they would never use it. Others said they liked the id
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:23 AM, James Padolsey
wrote:
> I don't think we can attribute the idea to any one person though. As
> Matt mentioned, this topic comes up every few months, from various
> individuals.
I haven't followed all threads about this topic, but it seems we got
pretty in-depth wi
You're right. I just added this thread URL to the source.
I don't think we can attribute the idea to any one person though. As
Matt mentioned, this topic comes up every few months, from various
individuals.
Also, what's with the "you have to" attitude. Politeness isn't
overrated, ya know...
On J
James, In your source You have to mention whose idea was this
And where have you found out about it : this forum + this thread ...
Thanks : DBJ
On Jan 17, 9:22 pm, James Padolsey
wrote:
> Yesterday, after seeing this thread, I started work on a "jQuery Lint"
> script. You can see it here:h
Yesterday, after seeing this thread, I started work on a "jQuery Lint"
script. You can see it here: http://github.com/jamespadolsey/jQuery-Lint
It does a few basic checks - argument signatures being the main one.
It also tries to combat lack-of-caching with selections, and it will
warn you when yo
Yes a temporary wrapper is better... and useful for other things too.
Diego
On 16 Gen, 01:16, DBJDBJ wrote:
> How about a proxy (aka mediator, aka facade ) pattern ?
> Let us call that "facade" : jQLint. An facade to the real jQuery
> behind . Let's call its instance: $$
>
> // inside jQlint
> (
How about a proxy (aka mediator, aka facade ) pattern ?
Let us call that "facade" : jQLint. An facade to the real jQuery
behind . Let's call its instance: $$
// inside jQlint
(function ( window, undefined ) {
// Define a local copy of jQLint
var jQLint = function( selector, context ) {
Jason,
maybe I have attributed to Dave something that was actually said by
DBJ ... sorry in that case.
I am just against inclusion in core and against the inclusion of any
mechanism for that scope in general.
As said, if the tool is an external and independent "Lint-like"
solution I don't see any
Of course by "first" I meant: first , but only on this latest thread.
This is just the latest incarnation of the idea which is not mine...
-- DBJ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-.
@Jason: yes , you are (also) right, and also :
>
> I think you're still not quite understanding what Dave is suggesting.
>
Funny .. I could swear it was I who suggested this first ;o)
--DBJ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> I think you miss the point. This would not be a production version of
> jQuery. It would be either a stand-alone jquery version, called
IME, that's a big red flashing "ALERT!" sign with white bulbs around it!
Something that isn't meant
On Jan 15, 1:11 pm, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> I like the idea, and I think it would be possible to do this as a
> plug-in, which replaces calls to jQuery functions with calls that
> check the parameters, store errors, then delegate to the the original
> function. But have no time at the moment to hel
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Jason Persampieri wrote:
> I think you're still not quite understanding what Dave is suggesting.
Timing! :-)
-- Scott
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email t
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Diego Perini wrote:
> Why should we inflict these no sense conditionals onto everybody.
> Should we then check every parameter of every method too, just to be
> helpful to one people not remembering signatures or lazy to lookup a
> documentation page ?
I think you
Diego,
I think you're still not quite understanding what Dave is suggesting.
He is *not* saying everyone running jQuery would be subjected to these
checks.
He *is* saying there is a completely new build of jQuery (let's call
it jQuery-1.4.lint.js) that a developer could *choose* to run against
j
Dave,
I completely agree with Andrea Raimondi above and everything he said
make sense to me.
Why should we inflict these no sense conditionals onto everybody.
Should we then check every parameter of every method too, just to be
helpful to one people not remembering signatures or lazy to lookup a
d
I so agree with you here, Dave.
Design by contract is all I have to say.
2010/1/15 Dave Methvin
> > "Not technically demanding" uh?
> > I beg to differ on this one.
>
> Conceptually it's a simple idea: Inspect the parameters being passed
> to jQuery and its methods, then see if they match the A
@Dave : thanks, you got it right
Also, jQueryLINT is not a plugin, it is version of jQuery itself. With
checks all over the place inside ...
If that effort is owned by jQuery team and efforts channelled, this
should be a great help for addressing the user related issues ... And
this will make ever
> "Not technically demanding" uh?
> I beg to differ on this one.
Conceptually it's a simple idea: Inspect the parameters being passed
to jQuery and its methods, then see if they match the API signature
and follow good practice. I started on it years ago but punted (hides
head in shame) because it
19 matches
Mail list logo
