Comment #14 on issue 1123 by diego.perini: Allow Function in valija?
http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/issues/detail?id=1123
your point is relevant only if there's a
reason to use NWMatcher rather than Sizzle. Could you comment on that?
The presence of a bottom-up "match()" method should be enough for what you
ask !
I would like to skip unfairness and unnecessary competition at this level
of speed.
Both NWMatcher & Sizzle compares quite well on the select() method.
The point is most of the time we don't need a select() method, and current
libraries
are able to just do that in a convoluted and slower way. :-)
I added the selection operation to NWMatcher later on in the development
stage and
just because the market was still demanding it as a means of solving
problems in the
wrong way, well maybe a bit drastic said this way here but to get you to
the point
quickly.
As for compatibility NWMatcher passes both jQuery and Prototype own
selector unit tests.
I am sure you can easily find other benchmarks (none of them written by me)
and read
in the code if you want to know other aspects as reason for your original
question.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings
