Hey guys, could anyone tell.

Mattila: Imho safest method is to encode your data to exclude a particular character, and use that that character as the separator. only way to guarentee a user does not provide that character. even if they do, it does not matter

Lopeman: Hey, I appreciate that you are being concerned but I thought it came across very defensive like I was mean. No offense.

Fisanick: Is it possible to do something on a checkbox that is being unselected right now? I mean you have three checkboxes, one is checked, when you unselect it only then, not when you select it to for example console.log something?

Bracks: No worries, its all good

Mattila: Ifohancroft: bind a change event to the checkbox

Hamai: Mattila: won’t that execute no matter if I check it or uncheck it?

Garms: Mattila , Bracks : thanks

Mattila: Yes, but you can check the state in it if you only want to execute on one of the two

Kauffman: That is what I need then. How do I check the state of it?

Mattila: Or :selected, i forget

Clampitt: And it will return false if it’s not checked?

Bracks: That will only fire when you click on your checkbox and its already checked

Mattila: What if it started off unchecked

Bracks: He said he didn’t want anything to happen if it wan’t checked and he was clicking it

Mattila: Ok, so it wasn’t checked and they check it

Mattila: I think it’s a potential hole, though if you did something like that on a delegate, i think you’d have something

Bracks: From a css standpoint its solid. It only fires when checked and the click event occurs. But I understand your concern, I typically use conditional checking like .is’:checked’ as well. I was just giving another option

Mattila: This is what i meant http://jsfiddle.net/zLcLamkg/ has both ways

Mattila: Notice the second only works on the one that starts off checked

Bracks: Looks like the :checked selector is only looking at the initial element state when DOM loads, not the new state of each change

Mattila: Yeah, it’s filtering to know what to bind on

Mattila: Its just that for a delegate it’s evaluated every time, not for the binding

Tully: Mattila: This is what I did http://codepen.io/ifohancroft/pen/rOOWbw and it works exactly the way I want it :3 Thank you

Lonn: Wait, no it’s change hahaha.

Mattila: Or maybe even $this.is’:not:checked’

Tron: Mattila: I know about the first and I didn’t know I could use :not:checked 😀

Aguado: Also, don’t use == unless you’re comparing to null or undefined.

Mattila: That’s a guess, dunno if it is valid

Rease: Don’t do that. invert the conditional.

Lopresti: Isn’t === for bit comparison like in other programming languages and == regular comperison?

Tonrey: So it is this way in JS as well or here it is = and ==?

Dussault: Ah so you mean I should use ===?

Wiren: Except not in this case ;

Schoepfer: Sorry I thought you meant that in JS for the == comparison you use =

Mattila: No need to compare a boolean to get a boolean result

Kobs: Http://jsfiddle.net/f8x689b7/

Pauling: No need for jquery objects to see if something is checked

Adelstein: Yes I know I can do it that way but I was just testing earlier so I did it whatever way just to see if it will detect the unchecking

Roudybush: Also, invert your logic to test for the truthy case in this instance.

Mattila: Heh, i think that’s one of my biggest pet peeves. dunno how many times i’ve seen if something return true; else return false;

Atleh: Yeah don’t test if === false.

Dennington: Invert like a gangsta

Willis: Hey guys, could anyone tell me why https://dpaste.de/BbT7 doesn’t seem to work?