[mochikit] Re: Usage of Selector (or bug?)

2007-12-17 Thread Glin 

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[mochikit] New INPUT short-hand functions?

2007-12-17 Thread machineghost 

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?

2007-12-17 Thread Kevin Damm 

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?

2007-12-17 Thread Kevin Damm 

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?

2007-12-17 Thread Kevin Damm 

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?

2007-12-17 Thread Bob Ippolito 

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---