Oops, fixed a typo:
$.fn.extend({
showIf: function(fn)
{
var result;
switch (typeof fn) {
case 'function':
result = fn.call(this);
break;
default:
result = fn;
}
if (result) {
$(this).show();
} else {
$(this).hide();
}
return $(this);
}
});
-Hector
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Hector V
I ran into this same problem today and wrote up this quick plugin that
accepts a boolean or function:
$.fn.extend({
showIf: function(fn)
{
var result;
switch (typeof fn) {
case 'function':
result = fn.call(this);
break;
default:
result = fn;
}
if (result) {
$(this.show());
} else {
$(this.hide()
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 19:58, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Dylan Verheul wrote:
> Hmm, I actually checked the docs for that because that would make
> .toggle an unsuitable overloader. The docs said toggle doesn't take
> arguments:
>
> Hmmm, indeed. :) No
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Dylan Verheul wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 14:56, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not sure if toggle(cond) is the best choice, though. It's already
pretty
overloaded as it is, and it can already take a string or numeric
argument
for speed (e.g. 'slo
How about something like (although i admit the function name could
use some thinking, heh)
(function($) {
$.fn.showorhide = function(bool) {
if (bool) {
$(this).show();
}
else {
$(this).hide();
}
return this
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 14:56, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It struck me that I often have to write something like this:
>
> if (cond) $(this).show() else $(this).hide();
>
> Since jQuery is about reducing and chaining, wouldn't it be nice if I
> could write it like this:
>
> $(this)
On Nov 18, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Dylan Verheul wrote:
I'm building a new version of an often used data entry form on our
site Waarneming.nl (int'l version Observado.org).
It struck me that I often have to write something like this:
if (cond) $(this).show() else $(this).hide();
Since jQuery is abo
7 matches
Mail list logo
