] > I have gone through it again and looked at source code. > > I now got the problem you are talking about in your message... > > ...parent[ doneName]... (gasp) > > and I know the related problem there is in that part of selectors to > be able to do that fast enough. > > But really you don't need to do that, not in the nth child resolution > at least, that is the only place I use it in my NWMatcher. > > I find that hardly acceptable for "bind()" were fewer events are > fired, I'm try to imagine what will happen in live() with virtually > hundreds of triggering for second with just few events bound. > > Maybe you can take some ideas from NWMatcher on that specific part. > > I also bet that part slows down a bit your overall fast Sizzle.
Hmm? Actually it dramatically speeds up the selectors, which is why it was included. Since Sizzle has to traverse up the DOM tree in order to verify a selector, keeping track of what was already verified saves a lot of extra checks and speeds up the code overall. Other selector libraries are very different in this regard. That being said, having some way to simplify this (and cut down on the expandos used) would be really good. Like I said, this is a priority for me before Sizzle 1.0 comes out. --John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
