no. I just count the total classhops.
A
On Sep 12, P T Withington wrote:
> Don't you have to maintain classhops for each selector in a rule? I'm just
> suggesting replacing classhops of a selector with the actual class instead.
>
> On 2006-09-12, at 10:22 EDT, Adam Wolff wrote:
>
> > oh wait. because there are complex selectors (i.e. multiple classes
> > associated with a single rule,) we'd have to make a fairly big change to
> > do something like this.
> >
> > A
> >
> > On Sep 12, Adam Wolff wrote:
> >
> > > good thought!
> > >
> > > On Sep 12, P T Withington wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2006-09-12, at 01:06 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + if ( rA._classhops != rB._classhops ){
> > > > > + return (rA._classhops < rB._classhops ) ? -1 : 1;
> > > > > + } else return (rA._lexorder < rB._lexorder ) ? 1 : -1;
> > > >
> > > > If you stored the class associated with the rule in the rule, you could
> > > > simplify this (and eliminate the non-portable classhops computation) by
> > > > saying:
> > > >
> > > > if (rA.class !== rB.class) {
> > > > return (rA.class instanceof rB.class) ? -1 : 1;
> > > > } else ...
> > > >
> > > > Just a thought.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Laszlo-dev mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
> > >
>
_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
