It's fair to say that the documentation is a little thin on the
ground. I've been writing jQuery for a long while and I'd never even
heard of the if() or eq() functions, let alone lt() and gt(). Having
said that - what is there is generally very well written and and
covers alot. It is also very concise which is both good and bad.
On Aug 16, 11:43 pm, David Duymelinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 10:27 pm, "Glen Lipka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As a non-programmer, (HTML/CSS only) I understand lt() and gt() mainly
> > because of < and >.
> > I think those are very easy. The place I get confused a little is when you
> > can say $("p:gt(4)") and $("p").gt(4) and get the same thing. Why both? I
> > suppose the answer is "because some people like it one way and some the
> > otht ter".
>
> I believe John posted in another thread the methods are gone in future
> releases and the selectors stay. So no more confusion for you :)
>
>
>
> > Glen
>
> > On 8/16/07, Rey Bango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Amazon.
>
> > > Rey
>
> > > Andy Matthews wrote:
> > > > Karl...
>
> > > > Where would be the best place for my company to purchase your book so
> > > > that you will get the maximum benefit?
>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > *On Behalf Of *Karl Swedberg
> > > > *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:15 PM
> > > > *To:* [email protected]
> > > > *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
> > > > special-case uses for both function calls and method names
>
> > > > Andy,
>
> > > > I realize these are contrived examples, but if you're interested in
> > > > seeing what those selectors/traversal methods (e.g. :lt or .lt() ) can
> > > > be used for, here are a few links that might be helpful:
>
> > >http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/12/how-to-get-anything-you-want-pa...
>
> > >http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/12/how-to-get-anything-you-want-pa...
>
> > > >http://book.learningjquery.com/3810_02_code/selectors.html
> > > >http://book.learningjquery.com/3810_03_code/traversing.html
>
> > > > --Karl
> > > > _________________
> > > > Karl Swedberg
> > > >www.englishrules.com
> > > >www.learningjquery.com
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Andy Matthews wrote:
>
> > > >> John...
>
> > > >> I should have added on to my OP. Better examples are really what is
> > > >> needed,
> > > >> not changes to the language. Let me read through and see possible RW
> > > >> examples of eq() or is() and let me say "hey I did that very thing last
> > > >> week, but with 10 more lines of code)".
>
> > > >> andy
>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > >> Behalf Of John Resig
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:48 PM
> > > >> To: [email protected]
> > > >> Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
> > > special-case
> > > >> uses for both function calls and method names
>
> > > >> Sure, that makes sense - and it's obviously difficult. I think the
> > > burden
> > > >> may lie on us to write better examples - although, it's hard to think
> > > of
> > > >> ones that aren't complex that also aren't contrived.
>
> > > >> At this point, I look for fringe cases in jQuery where, simply, a
> > > >> plugin is
> > > >> unable to duplicate functionality (or where a plugin would be hugely
> > > >> bloated, where the result in core would be quite simple, instead).
>
> > > >> That being said, I'm still advancing the library with some fun methods
> > > >> like
> > > >> .andSelf() whose uses won't become commonly apparent until far down the
> > > >> line.
>
> > > >> --John
>
> > > >> On 8/16/07, Andy Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > >>> John...
>
> > > >>> To be fair...it's very easy to learn the basics of jQuery, but it's
> > > >>> quite a lot of work and time to learn the really cool stuff. I've
> > > >>> never used eq() or
> > > >>> if() and those other because I simply don't understand what they do.
> > > >>> I'm sure some of them could improve my code dramatically but I don't
> > > >>> even know WHEN I might use them, so I don't know when to look for
> > > >>> them. Does that makes sense?
>
> > > >>> andy
>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>> On Behalf Of John Resig
> > > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:53 PM
> > > >>> To: [email protected]
> > > >>> Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
> > > >>> special-case uses for both function calls and method names
>
> > > >>> I don't understand this argument at all. So this guy is proposing that
> > > >>> we change all the jQuery methods to:
>
> > > >>> $Array([array of elems])
> > > >>> $Selector("str")
> > > >>> $HTML("html")
> > > >>> $Element(DOMElement)
>
> > > >>> and:
>
> > > >>> .appendElement(DOMElement)
> > > >>> .appendHTML("html")
> > > >>> .appendArray([array of elems])
>
> > > >>> what on earth does that gain you? What's the purpose of using a
> > > >>> language that can overload arguments and not actually using that
> > > >>> feature? What's the advantage of increasing the size of your API
> > > 4-fold?
>
> > > >>> Incredibly weak argument, obviously someone who's never used the
> > > library.
>
> > > >>>> Some method names make no
> > > >>>> immediate sense, like .one or .eq, and you can't immediately tell if
> > > >>>> a method acts on the first element in the collection or all of them.
>
> > > >>> These arguments are slightly more valid. Although .eq() is going away
> > > >>> in 1.2. I really don't know what to say, in this case it was simply a
> > > >>> design decision. We could've had:
> > > >>> .val() (return nothing, do nothing useful)
> > > >>> .val("val") (set value)
> > > >>> .getVal() (get value)
> > > >>> .getVal("val") (return nothing, do nothing useful)
>
> > > >>> But why have a state of a method perform nothing useful at all? Why
> > > >>> not overload it to actually do something? Why double the size of the
> > > >>> effective API with half-useful functions?
>
> > > >>> --John
>
> > > >>> On 8/16/07, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> What do you guys think of this critique of jQuery I found on Simon
> > > >>>> Willison's site (which is good reading).
>
> > > >>>>http://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/15/jquery/
>
> > > >>>> <quote>
> > > >>>> jQuery is definitely a popular utility function library, but the
> > > >>>> sheer amount of dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both
> > > >>>> function calls and method names is an instant turnoff for me.
>
> > > >>>> The jQuery object itself can perform a selector query, embed a DOM
> > > >>>> element, create a DOM element from HTML and assign a DOMContentReady
> > > >>>> event handler - and probably more. Event handling is separated into
> > > >>>> separate methods for each event type. Some method names make no
> > > >>>> immediate sense, like .one or .eq, and you can't immediately tell if
> > > >>>> a method acts on the first element in the collection or all of them.
>
> > > >>>> I can't recommend jQuery to the developers I am mentoring because it
> > > >>>> is in itself a completely separate abstraction, and a muddy one at
> > > >>>> that. They will end up having to learn jQuery instead of having to
> > > >>>> learn DOM, CSS and JS, and when being considered as a direct
> > > >>>> replacement for those it fails both due to complexity and
> > > >>>> inconsistency."
>
> > > >>>> </quote>
>
> > > >>>> Mitch
