Thanks, that makes sense. I still don't feel good about this code...
$.fn.disable = function() {
$(this).attr("checked", false);
$(this).attr("disabled", true);
return $(this);
}
$.fn.enable = function() {
$(this).attr("disabled", false);
return $(this);
}
$(".responsibleCouncil .category").each(function() {
var cat = $(this);
var inputSelector = "ul input";
cat.find(".toggler input").focus(function() {
cat.siblings().find(inputSelector).disable();
cat.find(inputSelector).enable();
});
});
What do you think? Any obvious improvements? Corresponding Form
structure:
<form>
...
<fieldset class="responsibleCouncil">
...
<div class="category">
<div class="toggler">
<input type="radio" ... />
</div>
<ul>
<li><input type="radio"... /></li>
<li><input type="radio"... /></li>
</ul>
</div>
...repeated
</fieldset>
...
</form>
Thomas
On Dec 3, 1:19 pm, "Josh Nathanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have to do it that way because the context has changed. Thus "this" in
> the second anonymous function will refer to something different than in the
> first. A lot of people use the convention "var self = this" or something
> similar.
>
> Also within the anonymous function you can do this:
> siblings.find( etc );
> category.find( etc );
>
> ...since they are already jQuery objects.
>
> -- Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> Behalf Of 703designs
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:44 AM
> To: jQuery (English)
> Subject: [jQuery] Scope variables in anonymous functions?
>
> What I'm trying to figure out is how I can access parent scopes from a
> nested anonymous function. As you can see here, I'm managing to do
> this by assigning "this" to variables, but I know that there's a way
> to pass "this" into the anonymous functions:
>
> $(".responsibleCouncil .category").each(function() {
> var category = $(this);
> var input = $(this).find(".toggler input");
> var siblings = $(this).siblings();
>
> input.click(function() {
> $(siblings).find("ul").hide();
> $(category).find("ul").show();
> });
> });
>
> Basically, those three assignments at the top of the first anonymous
> function would be unnecessary if I knew of a better way to access
> "this" from nested functions.
>
>
