Why has the keypress been remapped as keydown in the rc? AFAIK,
keypress is the only key event that fires as the button is held
pressed. With this remap, it's impossible to create continuous
actions.
Is there any particular reason why this remap has been introduced?
On 9/25/07, Viktor Kojouharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any particular reason why this remap has been introduced?
Yes. In certain browsers (WebKit, for one), the keycode property isn't
available on that event, so it's remapped to achieve cross-browser
compatibility. I, for one, never
I vote an emphatic No - this would be overhead within proto-core, which
should remain as _baseline_ as possible (that's my rant and I'm sticking to
it - proto is a baseline - don't bloat it... please!). What people need to
get in the habit of doing is loading an extensions.js file (or something)
On 9/25/07, Ryan Gahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
var oldInsert = Element.insert;
Element.insert = function(...) {... fireYourCustomEvent() ...
oldInsert(...)};
We hear what you are saying. I don't know all the things Sam had in mind,
but I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to slow down Prototype
I vote an emphatic No - this would be overhead within proto-core, which
should remain as _baseline_ as possible (that's my rant and I'm sticking to
it - proto is a baseline - don't bloat it... please!).
I see that point - and that was the type of discussion that I wanted
to spawn. I agree
Will it be addressed, then?
On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, Mislav Marohnić [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 9/25/07, Viktor Kojouharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any particular reason why this remap has been introduced?
Yes. In certain browsers (WebKit, for one), the keycode property isn't
As can be noted by increasing the argument in String#times, execution
time slows down dramatically and makes logarithmically identical curve
(to one produced my String#times in FireFox), yet of doubled order
magnitude.
An alternative method for IE exists that makes use of array
concatenation.
On 9/25/07, Andrew Red [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An alternative method for IE exists that makes use of array
concatenation. Below are the tests, benchmarks and conclusions: ...
Interesting. All this JavaScript gurus say don't use String concatenation;
use array.join instead ... and it's
To explain the subject line, I believe, the concept of JSON strings
should be described by the following formula:
eval(obj.toJSON()) - obj,
i.e. toJSON methods should return such a string from an object that if
evaluated, the result to be identical to that original object.
I believe, this
Andrew Red wrote:
...
1. Date#toJSON returns a string, if evaluated, it won't become that
same date again:
I'd like to note that this unit test passes in IE and FF:
testDate: function() {with(this) {
var date = new Date();
assert((eval('new Date(' + (date
Hi,
Regarding your first and 3rd point, Prototype's JSON implementation is
based on RFC 4627 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt?number=4627)
and maps Douglas Crockford's JS implementation (http://json.org/
json.js).
JSON is a language agnostic data exchange format which happens to be
easily
var oldInsert = Element.insert;
Element.insert = function(...) {... fireYourCustomEvent() ...
oldInsert(...)};
Just for reference, the way that I got this to work in Prototype 1.6
was (hopefully this accounts for all cases):
var prev = {};
Also consider that JSON is not eval'ed unless the regex
detects that there are no illegal tokens such as function calls that
would open up a script to hacking
That's only true if you've passed true to String#evalJSON's sanitize
argument - see http://prototypejs.org/api/string/evalJSON for
No one probably cares but me about this - but there were a few issues
with the previous code...here is some that works, and is suitable for
placing in an extension.js file:
var prev = {};
[insert,remove,replace,update,wrap].each(function(s){prev[s]
= Element[s]});
var add = {
insert:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Andrew Red wrote:
To explain the subject line, I believe, the concept of JSON strings
should be described by the following formula:
eval(obj.toJSON()) - obj,
i.e. toJSON methods should return such a string from an object that if
evaluated, the result to be
Yeah, yeah, thanks to all.
I should have read the RFC thing before even thinking to write about
it. (json.org is well-known, thanks)
Idea not good. Unless, of course, if someone sees otherwise.
Still, I think it was worth bringing your attention to it.
Best regards,
Andrew Revinsky
On
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7412
I'm fairly confident that I've fixed this problem, so I marked the
patch as fixed. Should I have done this? Do they need to stay as not-
fixed until the patch is included?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
17 matches
Mail list logo
