> > $.extend(foo) merely returns a reference to foo. It doesn't
> > clone foo.
> >
> > $.extend( {}, foo ) creates a new object and copies all of foo's
> > properties into it (doing a shallow copy).
> >
> > So in theory you may be able to use $.extend( {}, $ ) - or more
> > properly, jQuery( {}, jQuery ) - to clone the jQuery constructor. I
> > wouldn't promise that this would work, though - it depends on what
> > assumptions the jQuery code makes.
> This also doesn't work. I have tried both $.extend({}, $)
> and $.extend(true, {}, $). This results in $D('body') is not
> a function error. Seems that it doesn't copy really.
That's what I get for posting late at night. Of course that wouldn't work,
because you need to clone the jQuery constructor function itself - which {}
doesn't do.
This would have a better chance of working:
$D = eval( '' + jQuery );
$D.prototype = jQuery.extend( {}, jQuery.prototype );
A quick test seems to work - but I'm not sure about cross-browser support,
and there could be issues because of assumptions made inside the jQuery
code.
I still don't understand the need for this, though. You mentioned
performance, and a solution involving event delegation. Event delegation is
the first thing I turn toward when there are performance problems caused by
too many event handlers - and you don't need a special version of jQuery to
use it.
-Mike
