Sorry, Diego, but you may have made things more confusing! :-)
If you change "enclosures of that kind" to "enclosures of either kind" it
will probably be more clear.
As you said, there isn't any real reason for plugin developers to prefer one
of these two forms over the other. It's just a matter of historical
accident. I posted a message in this group a couple of years ago that
mentioned the (function($){...})(jQuery); approach, and everybody liked it
and started using it in their plugins. It could have just as easily been the
(function(){var $=jQuery;...})(); version.
Regarding the comment that there may not be any need to do this other than
the noConflict thing - actually I do it all the time just to get a local
scope for some variables. I don't want to put variables into the global
namespace when I can avoid it.
-Mike
_____
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Diego A.
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:44 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: Why (function($){ ...})(jQuery) instead of
(function(){var $ = jQuery; ...})()?
Hi there,
No, there's no difference. They both have the exact same effect.
But there's a reason why plugin developers use enclosures of that kind. They
do it to make sure they can use $ instead of jQuery even when the user is
using jQuery.noConflict().
Perhaps you want to isolate your own variables within an anonymous function,
but unless you're using jQuery.noConflict(), you don't actually need to do
this at all.
I hope that clears up any confusion...
Diego
2008/7/3 jfine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 3 Jul, 21:35, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, either one will do exactly the same thing. It's purely a matter of
> taste.
Thank you both for this. I think Michael right, but perhaps Diego
would like to response - he thinks there is a difference.
Thank you also Michael for the semicolon warning. I'm now using js2-
mode.el with Emacs. It warns me about such errors.
--
Jonathan
--
Cheers,
Diego A.
