Yes, either one will do exactly the same thing. It's purely a matter of
taste.
You're missing a semicolon at the end of both versions, though. Watch out
for that - it can cause you some grief.
-Mike
> From: jfine
>
> The (rather long) subject line says it all.
>
> This idiom is widely used to avoid having to assume $ ==
> jQuery and at the same time avoiding writing jQuery all the time.
> (function($){
> ...
> })(jQuery)
>
> I'm wondering if instead this would work.
> (function(){
> var $ = jQuery;
> ...
> })()
>
> The reason I ask is that I'd like to shorthand several things
> in this way. The first method requires me to go down to the
> end of a (long) function body to find out what, say '_' and
> 'C' really mean (private and Constants, say), whereas the
> second method tells me up front.
>
> I know enough JavaScript to think of this alternative
> approach, but not enough to be sure that it will work in all
> relevant circumstances.
