tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34454975.post2912702391285672439..comments2023-06-28T16:58:41.189+02:00Comments on Web Reflection: Rethinking the $()Andrea Giammarchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16277820774810688474noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34454975.post-42909398291036465422015-06-24T16:48:13.889+02:002015-06-24T16:48:13.889+02:00like I was thinking already :-)
> It's an ...like I was thinking already :-)<br /><br />> It's an experiment and is mostly for me saving time when prototyping some non-production ready code. <br /><br />thanks for clarifying that. CheersAndrea Giammarchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16277820774810688474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34454975.post-48101495211228498622015-06-24T15:51:01.305+02:002015-06-24T15:51:01.305+02:00Yeah looks good, man.
I probably shouldn't ha...Yeah looks good, man.<br /><br />I probably shouldn't have given it a name, but I always wanted to use the name. It's an experiment and is mostly for me saving time when prototyping some non-production ready code. <br /><br />I think using a $ wrapper for on is a decent concession to avoid augmenting native prototypes so I'd probably have to move to that to be real, just with the regression of calling `[0]` a lot.<br /><br />And yeah, I didnt mention queryAll in the gist, but should have, as that fixes the array subclassing yes. But again this was me trying to do the quick and overly clever 10 line version instead of a more reliable polyfill. :)Paul Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12055785626482615888noreply@blogger.com