Add note on bug with .index() before 1.9
#582
Conversation
|
I think we can reword that and the sentence before it to not be all like "bug in old version" more like:
I'm still not sold, but I think we can word it a little cleaner that doesn't make it sound too bad? |
|
@gnarf Agreed. Updated the PR. |
| @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ console.log( "Index: " + div.first().index() ); // 0 | |||
|
|
|||
| In the first example, `.index()` gives the zero-based index of `#foo1` within its parent. Since `#foo1` is the second child of its parent, `index()` returns 1. | |||
|
|
|||
| When `.index()` is called on a jQuery object that contains more than one element, it calculates the index of the first element. | |||
|
|
|||
| __Note__: Before jQuery 1.9, .index() only worked reliably on a single element, which is why we've used .first() on each of our examples. In jQuery 1.9+ this can be ignored, as the API was updated to define that it operates on the first element only. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: backtick the .index and .first()
also - not to fix now, but should we maybe make more of these methods in learn articles links to api?
|
@gnarf Updated PR once again.
We should hard-bake it in to beginners that everything can be find in api docs, so why not? |
Talk about why we use `.first()` in the examples. Closes jquerygh-582 Fixes jquerygh-276
Added a little note on the bug with
.index()in jquery < 1.9.The examples were fixed with 54946db, where
.first()was added without including any explanation about it. This results in even more confusion.In general this needs to be known by people, so makes sense to include it.
Would fix #276.