[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-20 Thread Tom Gregory
On Aug 17, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Mislav Marohnić wrote: It's nice to hear about how all of you solved the problem of collection attribute assignment, but the variety of solutions shows that this is very app-specific (IMO). I won't argue against not including (invoke-ing writeAttribute

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-17 Thread Mislav Marohnić
On 8/17/07, kangax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing to attributes is fine but for custom properties I ended up with this little helper (I know the name is idiotic but I had no time to think of a good one): Element.addMethods({ __extend: function(element, hash) { return

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-15 Thread Ken Snyder
Tom Gregory wrote: ... apply: function(iterator, attribute, value) { return this.map(function(item, index) { item[attribute] = value; }); }, ... I've run into a need for this as well. I'd vote for including it under a name 'setAll' or 'setEach'. Or, what is the

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-15 Thread Jeff Watkins
I would definitely second the nomination of a name that actually means something, like 'setAttribute' or similar. But then I'm a fan of self documenting function names - even when they're long and include all the letters in words. On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Ken Snyder wrote: Tom

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-15 Thread Tom Gregory
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Ken Snyder wrote: Tom Gregory wrote: apply: function(iterator, attribute, value) { return this.map(function(item, index) { item[attribute] = value; }); }, I've run into a need for this as well. I'd vote for including it under a name

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-14 Thread Gareth Evans
I am not a member of core, but +1 I like this for simplicity, but you could possibly use invoke? $$('#myFormId input').invoke('setAttribute','disabled',true) Gareth On 8/15/07, Tom Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might be something easy that I'm overlooking, but I don't see what I'm

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-14 Thread Tom Gregory
Okay... so maybe an array of Elements isn't the best example case. As I've thought about this a bit more, there's an easy way to accomplish this with Elements using invoke() $$(selector).invoke('writeAttribute', 'value', 'foo'); ... but what about arrays of Hashes/Objects where there

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-14 Thread kangax
Nice one, Tom! As far as naming I'd rather go with same pluck but with optional second argument for setting value $$('#myFormId input').pluck('disabled'); // getter $$('#myFormId input').pluck('disabled', true); // setter You have no idea how much confusion there's among beginners as far as

[Prototype-core] Re: Enumerable.pluck()-like setter

2007-08-14 Thread jdalton
I was in a similar situation where a pluck like setter would have been great. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to