Ken Snyder a écrit : > Yes, it was very slow for me too with any of the "nth-" predicates. > That nth routine relies on counting the number of previous siblings FOR > EVERY NODE. I'm not sure if that is avoidable, but I've added the
Yeah, you're O(n²) on this, and I think I found a way to be O(n) quite simply. I'll let you guys know... > first and last element separately is great, but not such a great > practice when trying to separate presentation from logic with JS. Plus, you can use :first-of-type and :last-of-type or :first-child and :last-child to achieve identical selection. > And :empty seems tricky in XPath too. So Christophe, keep us posted with > any XPath magic you have up your sleeve.... This is it from me for now > with $$. As for XPath, I do need to see whether we can achieve something efficient with XPath (building a global AND-based expression, much like the raw-OR version of include, would do nicely I guess). I am concerned with :not requiring a each/include, which is O(n²) as well, thus is very slow. I am thinking of another way to build the resulting set. If worse comes to worst, relying on the raw-OR variant of include *might* help in this case. -- Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD "[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark Twain Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" 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/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
