Dave Methvin wrote: > So my take was that the performance payback for simple selectors called > frequently could be good, but those cases are already pretty fast--we're > reducing a number that's already small. Complex selectors would still > require helper functions or compiled-in loops on every function invocation, > so they won't be improved nearly as much. Still, it would be a fun project > to try!
My main inspiration was the similarity of concepts between jQuery and XPath2, both essentially result in a sequence of elements (also values in XPath2). It occurred to me that several XPath2 features could map easily to javascript helper functions: axes, functions, and operators. I'm wondering how complex an XPath2 implementation would be? _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
