everyTime, et. al. seems to be short yet distinct. I've also been
thinking of adding an option to skip the function call if the previous
call hasn't completed yet (inspired by the $.interval method recently
posted to the list) so a new release with that feature and the changed
method names might come out later this week.
And thanks for the mod approval. I guess I shouldn't have changed the
e-mail address I was using on the mailing list.
-blair
On Aug 14, 10:26 am, "Jonathan Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to throw my suggestion in:
>
> $(...).oneTime();
> $(...).everyTime();
> $(...).stopTime();
>
> Cheers,
> -js
>
> P.S. I approved your account so there shouldn't be a delay anymore.
>
> On 8/14/07, Blair Mitchelmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe it's just my jealousy of pattern matching and multi-methods that
> > makes me want that particular solution. I definitely think that jQuery
> > is getting big enough that some form of plugin hierarchy would be
> > nice. (Though I'm perhaps a tad too modest to want a namespace for
> > myself. perhaps $(...).timer.start() ?)
>
> > I recall from last summer there was some discussion of namespacing of
> > plugins and john didn't seem to think it would be a huge technological
> > hurdle but it didn't really go anywhere. Personally, I think that
> > direct namespacing like that removes some of the brevity and
> > simplicity of jQuery. Though perhaps an importing system could be
> > used.
>
> > jQuery.import("timer");
>
> > jQuery(...).stop(); // stops timer events not animations
>
> > But this is all a discussion better suited for the dev list.
>
> > -blair
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:52 am, Stephan Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 3:34 pm, Blair Mitchelmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > (Though I think the next step in improving how plugins interoperate is
> > > > allowing multiple plugins to operate under the same name by having the
> > > > plugin provide some sort of argument test to determine if the provided
> > > > arguments are valid and then using that plugin on a case by case
> > > > basis)
>
> > > i think namespaces would be a better idea, e.g.:
>
> > > $(...).blair.start(...);
> > > $(...).blair.stop(...)
>
> > > i don't know if that type of thing is possible using the current jQ
> > > code. That sounds like a good question for the list.
