I am just curious as to the motivation for this; other than an extra dot, I
don't see much of a difference between:
var a = someObject.clone();
and
var a = clone(someObject);
Is it merely because you think it makes more semantic sense or . . . ? I
don't know why we would want t
> compromiseCHECKBOX({"name":"myName"}); // does not work (as intended)
I'm a little confused by this, since that's the base syntax. Without
it, how do you make:
(or an INPUT with any other attribute besides name)?
> I haven't seen a single signature like that in MochiKit so far
The whole rea
After looking at jQuery recently, I became interested in the idea of
adding core object prototype functions. Imagine if, instead of the
normal MochiKit syntax, you could do:
var a = someObject.clone(); // var a = clone(someObject);
var b = [].isArrayLike(); // var b = isArrayLike([]);
var c = som
Ok, so perhaps we should modify createDOMFuncExt to treat the argument
array as a list of optional arguments? With scalar I suppose you mean
typeof(o) == "string", "number" or "boolean"?
I'm not a big fan of overloaded function signatures, though. They tend
to be difficult to document in an under
