That works just as well as an anonymous function, but doesn't feel
like the proper behavior. Maybe I'm setting the oncomplete
incorrectly: I just declare it in the code above, rather than setting
up an Fx.morph.
Would I be hurting the performance of morph generally if I tried to
extend it to have a sort of "garbage the element on completion of
effect?" option?
On Sep 19, 1:35 am, CroNiX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you try adding a small delay to the destroy() within the
> oncomplete?
>
> On Sep 18, 7:40 pm, dtipson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm just wondering what the safest/cleanest/fastest/right way is to
> > completely destroy an element after an animation tween or morph
> > finishes. I'm basically cloning an input element, running an effect
> > on the clone (pushing it rightwards while shrinking and fading it out,
> > and then want it to be destroyed once its no longer visible (i.e., the
> > end of the effect)). I know that chaining is the preferred way to
> > schedule these sorts of events, but for some reason when I try to set
> > it up, the animation is jerky and slow. Here's an example of what I'm
> > doing, with a snippet taken from inside the onchange event function
> > that I'm adding to all input elements in a form:
>
> > var clone = this.clone();
> > clone.setStyle('position', 'absolute');
> > clone.injectAfter(this);
> > clone.morph({
> > left: 500,
> > opacity: 0,
> > width:10,
> > height:5,
> >
> > }).get('morph').chain(function(){clone.destroy();});
>
> > I can also simply use an anonymous function on a delay that destroys
> > the clone after a reasonable amount of time. This method works
> > perfectly... but it feels sort of cheap.
>
> > Would the absolute best way to do what I want to be to extend the
> > morph class so that it has an option to automatically destroy an
> > element on completion of the morph? I tried using the onComplete
> > function in the above code, but for some reason it destroys the
> > element before the animation finishes.
>
>
