Okay, so Google just didn't update my copy of the thread for a few
hours - that'll teach me to bother rewriting posts...
> That's cool. Could u tell us more about Your New lib?!
Unfortunately not at this point. I've been writing it for about a week
so it's early days. Basically it's a wrapper fo
(Google seems to have lost my first post, sorry if this comes up
twice...)
> I think that something like this is a good candidate for the core. There's
> so many requests and things for "how can I pause my code", etc.
>
> I can't see this being all that large in size.
It's not that small, for re
Hi all, thanks for checking my code out, nice to see some response.
> I think that something like this is a good candidate for the core. There's
> so many requests and things for "how can I pause my code", etc.
>
> I can't see this being all that large in size.
Matter of fact, it is not all that
> If you're positive you'll get an element back, why not just do:
> $('#something')[0].tagName
It's a question of syntactic nicety to be honest. It would be quite
nice to say var foo = $('#something'), then use native DOM methods and
properties as well as jQuery wrappers on the variable foo rathe
This might be kind of a niche thing, but anyways... I'm trying to
extend jQuery so that if $() returns a single element, you can get the
element's properties directly on the jQuery instance. e.g.
$('#something').tagName // "DIV"
$('#something').style.color = '#f00';
$('#something').getElement
5 matches
Mail list logo
