I'm ok to retract this request (and offer to do the work). I've been educated about what "use a closure" meant in the context of a working pastie solution.
http://pastie.caboo.se/146564 Inside the closure the happy jquery code runs oblivious to the possible reuse of $ elsewhere. Use one of these per library, for example. I'll close the ticket. On Jan 31, 5:13 pm, Dr Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it doesn't have to be the $ feature - this can be cleanly > noconflict-proofed; giving some useful benefits. > > I'm still keen to see this refactoring as I think its a Good Thing. > > On Jan 31, 9:17 am, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Right so there are some frameworks that will never work together, and > > > there are some frameworks that could work together with a little > > > love'n'care to prototypejs. > > > The question remains: how will we ever know which ones ? The > > frameworks which are self contained will always work. The others won't > > necessarily, and we don't have proper means to test which that. > > > I'd also like to add that, afaik, the only libs concerned by $ are > > jQuery - which sports a noConflict mode - and mootools, which extends > > native prototypes about as much as we do - so there would most > > certainly be conflicts there. > > > I personally don't think it is reasonable to release a feature which, > > by design, is and always will be incomplete. But that's just my $ .02 > > and isn't necessarily a view shared by everyone in core. > > > Best, > > > Tobie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
