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) //
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
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 =
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,
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,
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
