> Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
> - and it is obviously faster than a function call.
I figured that by now. I think Matt was much better at explaining why I
think an alternative exists() function is useful - it simply is the most
intuitive thing a new jQuery user looks for. I also agree with his
hasClass argument. I love the is() function, but I would have taken me a
long time to find it if I my question was phrased "Who can I determine
if an element has a certain class".is() is more powerful but not nearly
as intuitive as hasClass would be for new users.
> In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
> array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n)
> and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for
> compatibility with old code.
>
> There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
> the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n]
> and .length.
I disagree. Whenever you need to sort the elements in an <ul> or
something then you'll have to use the Array.sort() function, so you need
to do $('ul li').get().sort(...). Here is an example of where I needed
this functionality: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1632218532
It's not a big deal that I have to call get(), but it would be a big
problem if it wasn't there!
-- Felix
--------------------------
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Michael Geary wrote:
> Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
> - and it is obviously faster than a function call.
>
> In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
> array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n)
> and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for
> compatibility with old code.
>
> There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
> the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n]
> and .length.
>
> -Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Felix Geisendörfer
> Sean, Mike: I agree with your notion that learning that the jQuery
> object is array-like (It'd be cool if it was a real array and
> .push / .sort would work on it) is very worthwhile. I knew that
> when I initially stumbled across the problem and knew that doing
> it via '.length' was one solution. I was only confused if it was
> the right way or could lead to undesired results as I was new to
> jQuery at this point and I didn't find it mentioned anywhere in
> specific. That's where my notion of an 'exists()' function could
> be useful comes from. But it's probably just something that should
> be put in the manual somewhere (if it isn't already in there and I
> missed it).
>
> -- Felix
> --------------------------
> My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
> My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
>
>
> Sean Catchpole wrote:
>>
>> I believe that learning jquery returns an array like object is more
>> useful than creating a .exists() function.
>>
>> ~Sean
>>
