An slightly slower but more robust solution would be:
eq: function( i ) {
return this.pushStack( this.get(i), 'eq', i )
}
The main difference is that the ret.selector would preserve the
initial index (relative if negative).
On Feb 28, 9:44 pm, Robert Katić <[email protected]> wrote:
> If this solution seems ok, I would update the
> tickethttp://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4188.
>
> On Feb 28, 8:50 pm, ricardobeat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nice catch, that makes sense. Added it to the test page, it has no
> > significant impact on performance.
>
> > cheers,
> > - ricardo
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:27 pm, Robert Katić <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Since .get(-1) will be supported, eq(-1) would be supported too (?).
>
> > > So your implementation needs some extra code:
>
> > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > if ( i < 0 )
> > > i += this.length;
> > > return this.pushStack( this[i], 'eq', i )
>
> > > }
>
> > > However this solution would be still faster then the one
> > > onhttp://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4188, I suppose.
>
> > > On Feb 26, 11:02 pm, ricardobeat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Right, thanks!
>
> > > > Using pushStack seems ok, it's still chainable and keeps the selector
> > > > state, while still being at least twice faster.
>
> > > >http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4262http://jquery.nodnod.net/cases/177/run
>
> > > > cheers,
> > > > - ricardo
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:28 am, John Resig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, first I would argue that the two are not equivalent.
>
> > > > > $($(...)[x]) doesn't maintain the stack. You can no longer do:
> > > > > $(...).eq(1).addClass("test").end().appendTo("#foo");
> > > > > $($(...)[x]) doesn't maintain the internal selector state for plugins.
> > > > > For example if you checked $(...).eq(1).selector you'd see: ".slice(1,
> > > > > 2)"
>
> > > > > So, with that in mind, if there were ways to maintain that
> > > > > functionality and still get a performance speed-up, I'd definitely be
> > > > > open to it.
>
> > > > > --John
>
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ricardo Tomasi
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Creating two jQuery objects + a lookup $( $(...)[x] ) is faster
> > > > > > than a
> > > > > > simple $(...).eq(x). That doesn't make much sense.
>
> > > > > > Currently the eq function looks like this:
> > > > > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > > > > return this.slice( i, +i + 1 );
> > > > > > },
>
> > > > > > Are there any downsides to changing it to this (object unique IDs,
> > > > > > chaining)?
>
> > > > > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > > > > return jQuery(this[i]);
> > > > > > },
>
> > > > > > That offers a 25% to 40% speed improvement across all browsers.
> > > > > >http://jquery.nodnod.net/cases/177
>
> > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > - ricardo
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
