@rkatic: I think we were thinking of writing a wrapper function that works like jQuery.access for all of the functions that need this feature to dry up the code. Also, I believe the event module will be majorly refined in 1.7 so the patch you've made may not be workable when that comes around.

@timmywil: I am not convinced to introduce a wrapper function like jQuery.access. Event methods can handle plain objects too, but attr/removeAttr/data/removeData will probably not.

Something more then this would be probably an overhead or require more changes then needed:

jQuery.words = function( obj ) {
  if ( typeof obj === "string" ) {
    return obj.split( rspaces );
  }
  return obj || [];
}

My patch was more an intention to demonstrate how such feature would be easy to introduce, specially without a function like jQuery.access.

It's true. I wasn't saying your code is not good. It just may not fit at this time. I could very well be wrong, but considering that quite a bit ''will'' be changing, I think we will be able to reduce the overhead, which would be the point of having a wrapper function similar to access. By the way, this would not really apply to attr and data as we can't really set or get attributes and data with space-separated lists or arrays of keys. It would apply to removeAttr/removeData/unbind/die/undelegate. My thought was if DaveMethvin goes through with changes that have been discussed for event.js, this could all be quite clean.

Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.

-1, This seems like a lot of repetitious code to accomplish something that could easily be accomplished by the user

Please note that this feature is more about future API consistency since #5479 and #7323 will be likely accepted by voting (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tm2LK6e1VAHCEJyw4rsspWg).

-1, what is the gain?

+0, Not sure this will be needed.

I don't think there is any gain, except that it would allow something more programmatic binding (so not too relevant). I am not sure, but maybe this feature would be expected by the user once #5479 and #7323 will be applied.

So yea, if you ask to me I also would give a +0 to this.

-1, Not sure where this is useful, and I'm not a fan of bloat caused by consistency that nobody needs.

-1, Not really keen on this.

+0, Don't see the need to apply a special case to everything else...

-1