On Nov 13, 12:26 am, pd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just thought I'd re-iterate that I didn't post this item to whinge or
> whine about dodgy code being invalid or unecessary.
No need to be defensive, you pointed out a legititmate bug. Safari
might not have the browser-share of IE or
> From: Michael Geary
> > That's invalid JavaScript. It's not the duplicate function
> > name that makes it invalid, it's the fact that those are
> > named functions at all. Even if you reduced the code
> > to this, it would still be invalid:
> >
> > $(document).ready(
> >function () {
> >
Hi
Just thought I'd re-iterate that I didn't post this item to whinge or
whine about dodgy code being invalid or unecessary.
I wrote to highlight a difference in behaviour between a relatively
obscure browser and the rest. AFAIK that is one of the big goals of
any library - to pave over the crac
On Nov 12, 5:35 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's invalid JavaScript. It's not the duplicate function name that makes
> it invalid, it's the fact that those are named functions at all. Even if you
> reduced the code to this, it would still be invalid:
>
> $(document).ready
That's invalid JavaScript. It's not the duplicate function name that makes
it invalid, it's the fact that those are named functions at all. Even if you
reduced the code to this, it would still be invalid:
$(document).ready(
function () {
field1.click(
function somename () {
5 matches
Mail list logo