I have two very similar functions that exist mainly for syntactic sugar.
deactivate = (el, seek) -> el.find(seek).removeClass("active")
activate = (el, seek) -> el.find(seek).addClass("active")
This allows me to write, for example:
activate $("#something"), ".child"
Using the above purely as an example, ignoring any logical errors with the JavaScript itself… how could this be refactored to be more dry?
You can use js' bracket notation for this task
alter = (el, seek, method) -> el.find(seek)[method + "Class"]("active")
#use like this:
alter $("#something"), ".child", "add"
However, your situation doesn't really call for DRYness. Your method names make more sense than alter, or whichever name you may choose.
alter function as a stepping stone for the definitions of activate/deactivate become more DRY: deactivate = (el, seek) -> alter el, seek, "remove" activate = (el, seek) -> alter el, seek, "add" (Disclamer: I don't use CoffeScript)
\$\endgroup\$
activate and deactivate on an object, and pass which one you want as an argument to alter: containingObject[method]("active")
\$\endgroup\$
I think your code is fine. I would only suggest a more complex solution only if this pattern happens more often.
For example, if you want to refactor to allow for other class names you can do something like this:
adder = clsName -> (el, seek) -> el.find(seek).removeClass(clsName)
remover = clsName -> (el, seek) -> el.find(seek).addClass(clsName)
activate = adder 'active'
deactivate = remover 'active'
