> In any event, the expression "-1 * x" should always have the same > outcome as the expression "-x" and the latter would be one fewer > operations in ECMAScript terms (and even if the -1 is treated as a > negative numeric literal the unary negation operation should be faster > than the multiplication).
> I cannot see any reason for multiplying any number by positive one. My fault, in both cases above. The first thing I did when porting Penner's code was sustituting 1 for all occurrences of the c and d parameters and 0 for b, then I simplified the equations, but evidently I forgot some 1 * <anything> here and there. I'm going to post a revised version very soon. > There are (inevitably) a number of uses of - Math.PI * 2 - and - > Math.PI / 2 - in this code. It might be an idea to assign these two > values to variables in the containing scope and employ them as > constants in the functions. Thumbs up. :-) This is coming in next version too. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" 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-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
