brian,
I agree that filter() is powerful, but it is not a replacement for
hasClass... in fact, as u urself said, it is going to select the elements
and create a jquery object for it and it is unnecessary for such a trivial
check as hasClass... But is() is a replacement for sure... it returns a
boolean as expected, and doesnt select elements or create a jquery object.
For all that matters both approaches work... :)
-GTG
On 7/11/07, Brian Cherne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mootools:
> > includes a hasClass() function:
>
> > Prototype:
> > includes a hasClassName() function:
>
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but jQuery does have a "hasClass"
method... it's just called "filter" ... and far more powerful because you
can use any jQuery expression (not just classes).
$('p').filter('.intro')...
$('p').filter('.intro:visible')...
There is also the opposite "not" method...
$('p').not('.intro')...
I don't think I'd ever use "hasClass" as long as "filter" was around...
unless there were performance benefits to targeting class more specifically
with hasClass. I do find myself coding if( $('p')[0] ) sometimes have
wondered if there is (or will be) something more explicit (for those
unfamiliar with jQuery) but then I usually add a comment '// check to see if
element exists' and just move on.
Brian.
