jQuery.index() and jQuery.indexIn()

[jablko]

The semantics of jQuery.index() are backwards depending whether you pass an element or a selector as an argument, ​http://api.jquery.com/index/

I wish the semantics were consistent, so this example,

var $href = $('[href]', data);

var index = $href.index($href.filter('[href="' + location + '"]'));

• could be reduced to,

var $href = $('[href]', data);

var index = $href.index('[href="' + location + '"]');

I wish the two backwards semantics had two different names, e.g. jQuery.index() and jQuery.indexIn(), analogous to jQuery.append() and jQuery.appendTo()

[snover]

Resetting milestone to future.

[john]

We should look at this for 1.7 - I'm not convinced that the old way of .index() working really makes sense for our API.

[john]

Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.

[Rick Waldron]

+1, This seems like "indexOf", but for jQuery selector result objects, in which case, I support a semantically named implementation, perhaps similar to: ​http://jsfiddle.net/rwaldron/9R9kP/

[jaubourg]

+1, Makes sense to me

[ajpiano]

+0, I thought we made it work like the OP requested for 1.4. I suppose that having better named methods as opposed to argument-type magic would be an improvement.

[Timmy Willison]

+1, why not

[dmethvin]

+0, Not clear on the specific proposal here ... are we breaking code?

[john]

+1, I'm not sure about indexIn but we should definitely look to change the semantics of .index(String) to make it more useful.

[jzaefferer]

+0

[john]

We really need a clear solution here, rather than an ambiguous "needs improvement" in order to be a blocker.