jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both function calls and method names

[SeViR]

Stephan Beal escribió:
> On Aug 16, 7:39 pm, Mitch <goofy...@...> wrote:
>  
>
> An interesting point - don't recommend jQ IF the point of your work is
> teaching JavaScript.
>  
In my courses, I teach using Web Services with JavaScript, AJAX techniques,
and others HTML Rich Application techniques so my target is not JavaScript
learning because it is more difficult teach to a student ALL the
differents *hacks*
for any browsers (events attach, get XMLHttpRequest, ....) so I teach
jQuery.

I teach the difficulties of cross-browsing, the problems, and then I
show the more
clean jQuery method. All the students keeps the mouth opened when they
can see
how anything is more easy :-)

--
Best Regards,
 José Francisco Rives Lirola <sevir1ATgmail.com>

 SeViR CW · Computer Design
 http://www.sevir.org
 
 Murcia - Spain

[Dragan Krstic]

2007/8/16, Glen Lipka <glen@...>:

As a non-programmer, (HTML/CSS only) I understand lt() and gt() mainly because of &lt; and &gt;.
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 other". 

I like this methods and I'm using them a lot. They are very handful when I must to do some operation on subset of elements:

$("p:gt(4)").show().gt(10).css("color","red");

Or, if you need to operate multiple time on same collection:

var my_coll = $("p");
my_coll.gt(3).css("color","red");
my_coll.lt(3).css("color","blue");

This stuff cannot be done by solely in selector expression.

--
Dragan Krstić krdr
http://krdr.ebloggy.com/

[Erik Beeson]

> $("p:gt(4)").show().gt(10).css("color","red");
>
> Or, if you need to operate multiple time on same collection:
>
> var my_coll = $("p");
> my_coll.gt(3).css("color","red");
> my_coll.lt(3).css("color","blue");
>
> This stuff cannot be done by solely in selector expression.

I'm pretty sure this can be done with filter. In fact, a cursory test
with firebug on jQuery.com suggests it can:

>>> $('p');
[p, p, p.surprise, p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)');
[p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)').gt(4);
[p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)').filter(':gt(4)');
[p]

I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
with filter.

--Erik

[Dragan Krstic]

Of course, but I'm in favor of lt gt eq. Maybe 'cause I learned FORTRAN on college ;)

2007/8/17, Erik Beeson <erik.beeson@... >:

> $("p:gt(4)").show().gt(10).css("color","red");
>
> Or, if you need to operate multiple time on same collection:
>
> var my_coll = $("p");
> my_coll.gt(3).css("color","red");
> my_coll.lt(3).css("color","blue");
>
> This stuff cannot be done by solely in selector expression.

I'm pretty sure this can be done with filter. In fact, a cursory test
with firebug on jQuery.com suggests it can:

>>> $('p');
[p, p, p.surprise, p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)');
[p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)').gt(4);
[p]
>>> $('p:gt(2)').filter(':gt(4)');
[p]

I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
with filter.

--Erik

--
Dragan Krstić krdr
http://krdr.ebloggy.com/

[Mitchell Waite-2]

Thank you John - from you that means a lot. Speaking of meaning, are
you suggesting I better get moving on this? When you say move it to
the wiki do you mean I can go and set this up on the jq site?

On Aug 16, 8:45 pm, "John Resig" <jere...@...> wrote:

> Great work Mitch - if someone wants to beat me to you, you should move
> this over to the wiki. I'll try to take a stab at it, if I can
> remember.
>
> --John
>
> On 8/16/07, Mitch <goofy...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think this is a very stimulating topic - the responses have given me
> > a lot of insights to the frameworks of which jQuery belongs.
>
> > I see there are some big issues here that kind of scare me, the one
> > that stood out to me is the claim that jQurey is not for beginners who
> > don't know the DOM, CSS and JS.
>
> > I would contend that it is precisely the beginner that jQuery appeals
> > to.
>
> > Using myself as a test case - I came in knowing a little bit about JS,
> > a bit more about CSS and pretty much nothing about DOM..
>
> > I had tried to use JS and CSS to do some fancy interface work and
> > really got stuck in the complexities of JS. Then I found JQ and the
> > world rocked for me. Suddenly I could do amazing things with my GUIs.
> > Sure I had holes in my knowledge bank, and its shown in this mailing
> > list, but I think you will admit this is a pretty impressive interface
> > for a beginner to make:
>
> >http://www.whatbird.com/wwwroot/Components/Complete_Search_Tab.html
>
> > I have tons to learn but what a great and fun way to get started!
>
> > I do think there is one hole in the JQ web site and that is there are
> > not enough real life examples.
>
> > To that end I am putting together jQuery Cheat Sheet (TM) (C) How To.
>
> > I plan to make this available for everyone to contibute to. These two
> > How Tos are examples of the format I am proposing to begin with. If
> > anyone has any suggestions would love to hear them. If you have some
> > suggestions for How Tos let me know and I will try and create them. I
> > was thinking of making this into some kind of wiki like system where
> > it would allow poeple to create How Tos that ended up in this standard
> > format when formatted.
>
> >http://www.whatbird.com/wwwroot/Components/jQuery_How_Do_I_not.html
>
> >http://www.whatbird.com/wwwroot/Components/jQuery_How_Do_I_attr.html
>
> > The JQ web site and other sites do a great job on explaining the API
> > (even if most of the examples dont show up correclty in IE7) - whats
> > missing is the practical side of the package. Real world non verbose
> > examples of how to use the important features presented in a non
> > trival but lucid manner, with the key concepts listed for indexing as
> > well as the discussion is key to these working.
>
> > Mitch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mitchell Waite-2]

Is this topic changing to the need for removing stuff from jQ? My
intention was to just get opinions about the comment Thor made.

On Aug 17, 1:04 am, "Erik Beeson" <erik.bee...@...> wrote:

> > $("p:gt(4)").show().gt(10).css("color","red");
>
> > Or, if you need to operate multiple time on same collection:
>
> > var my_coll = $("p");
> > my_coll.gt(3).css("color","red");
> > my_coll.lt(3).css("color","blue");
>
> > This stuff cannot be done by solely in selector expression.
>
> I'm pretty sure this can be done with filter. In fact, a cursory test
> with firebug on jQuery.com suggests it can:
>
> >>> $('p');
>
> [p, p, p.surprise, p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]>>> $('p:gt(2)');
>
> [p, p.download_link, p.download_link, p, p, p]>>> $('p:gt(2)').gt(4);
> [p]
> >>> $('p:gt(2)').filter(':gt(4)');
>
> [p]
>
> I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
> with filter.
>
> --Erik

[John Resig]

> I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
> with filter.

That was the original goal, but I actually decided to introduce an
array method into jQuery to solve that problem: .slice(). Now gt/lt/eq
will become:

gt: .slice(Num)
lt: .slice(0,Num)
eq: .slice(Num,1)

Plus slice gives you a ton of extra functionality:
first: .slice(0,1)
last: .slice(-1)
all but first and last: .slice(1,-1)

--John

[bmsterling]

I like that, I like that alot!

On 8/17/07, John Resig <jeresig@...> wrote:

> I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
> with filter.

That was the original goal, but I actually decided to introduce an
array method into jQuery to solve that problem: .slice(). Now gt/lt/eq
will become:

gt: .slice(Num)
lt: .slice(0,Num)
eq: .slice(Num,1)

Plus slice gives you a ton of extra functionality:
first: .slice(0,1)
last: .slice(-1)
all but first and last: .slice(1,-1)

--John

--
Benjamin Sterling
http://www.KenzoMedia.com
http://www.KenzoHosting.com

[Andy Matthews-4]

The only concern I have is that this could be yet another mysterious method that someone might not know what it does. Will it work just lke javascript's slice method?

---

From: jquery-en@... [mailto:jquery-en@...] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:46 AM
To: jquery-en@...
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both function calls and method names

I like that, I like that alot!

On 8/17/07, John Resig <jeresig@...> wrote:

> I'm all in favor of removing gt/lt/eq in favor of the selector version
> with filter.

That was the original goal, but I actually decided to introduce an
array method into jQuery to solve that problem: .slice(). Now gt/lt/eq
will become:

gt: .slice(Num)
lt: .slice(0,Num)
eq: .slice(Num,1)

Plus slice gives you a ton of extra functionality:
first: .slice(0,1)
last: .slice(-1)
all but first and last: .slice(1,-1)

--John

--
Benjamin Sterling
http://www.KenzoMedia.com
http://www.KenzoHosting.com

[John Resig]

> The only concern I have is that this could be yet another mysterious method
> that someone might not know what it does. Will it work just lke javascript's
> slice method?

Yes, of course - that's the only reason why I'm making this change.

--John

[Andy Matthews-4]

Then by all means...have at it.

-----Original Message-----
From: jquery-en@... [mailto:jquery-en@...] On
Behalf Of John Resig
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:56 AM
To: jquery-en@...
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple special-case
uses for both function calls and method names


> The only concern I have is that this could be yet another mysterious
> method that someone might not know what it does. Will it work just lke
> javascript's slice method?

Yes, of course - that's the only reason why I'm making this change.

--John