jQuery Forum

Hello,
I'm liking the Slider plug-in a lot, but I'm having some difficulty
with overlapping, and any help with it would be greatly appreciated.
The problem is, if you have multiple handles the slider seems to let
them overlap and cross over each other. Is there any way to prevent
this (and if not, would new options like "allowOverlapping" and
"allowHandleCrossing" maybe be warranted; I can't be the only one out
there doing this)?
Also, I wound up tweaking the slider to give it support for multiple
ranges (so that if you have 3+ handles you can color the different
sections between them appropriately). Would anyone out there be
interested in me submitting these changes as a patch (and if so, does
anyone know who the "caretaker" of the slider is)?

Hello,
I already know that you can combine multiple attribute selectors, &&-
style, by doing:
$("*[name='someName'][value='someValue']");
However, what I was wondering is, is there any way to combine multiple
attribute selectors, ||-style, such that I could select:
$("*[name='someName'][value='someValue']").add("*[name='someName']
[value='someOtherValue']");
with a single select? I'm imagining a syntax of something like:
$("*[name='someName'][value='someValue'||'someOtherValue']");
(but, obviously, that syntax doesn't work).
The repetition of "[name='someName']" seems unnecessary to me, but I
can't figure out any way to get around it without an "or value=" type
selector. Any help would be appreciated (even if it's just "no you
can't do that, go bug the developers" ;-)).
Jeremy

While I love most things in jQuery, one thing I don't get is
replaceWith. This method returns the object you just replaced, which
as far as I can see is 100% worthless, rather than the the object
you're replacing it with. If you do:
$.(someHtmlElement).replaceWith("<div>my div</div>");
There is no way whatsoever (as far as I can tell at least) to access
"<div>my div</div>" after the replacement. You can access
someHtmlElement, but that's not very helpful; if you're replacing it,
you probably don't care about it anymore.
I read on some other threat that this hearkens back to an early jQuery
design philosophy issue. However, I have a hard time believing such
an otherwise awesome library would make such a (seemingly) obviously
poor design choice just for philosophy, so I have to ask:
Am I just missing some obvious case where it would actually be useful
to get the replaced element back? Or am I perhaps instead missing
some obvious way to access the replacement element?
Any explanation of this problematic (to me at least) behavior would be
appreciated.

As a former MochiKit user I'm continually impressed by how well jQuery
does everything that MochiKit can do, only better. However, there is
one very minor convenience feature that MochiKit had that I miss: in
Mochikit's abstracted event object (ie. the thing your event handling
callbacks receive as an argument) there is a method, in addition to
preventDefault and stopPropagation, called simply "stop". All this
method does is invoke those two other methods, so it would be super-
easy to add it to jQuery. If we did, it would turn code like this:
function someCallback(event) {
event.stopPropagation();
event.preventDefault();
doSomething();
}
in to this:
function someCallback(event) {
event.stop();
doSomething();
}
which (to me at least) seems a lot cleaner.
So ... what can I do to make this happen? Who decides whether
something like this gets added, and what can I do to convince them
that it's worth adding?
Thanks in advance for any feedback.