Yes... but in IE (in particular *old* IE) that lookup is very expensive. Doing it twice isn't a big deal. But if it is in a loop and is being done LOTS of times it can become a big deal. Basically, document.getElementById is super slow in IE.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jason <[email protected]> wrote: > > I actually user logic to solve your problem > > if($('someid') != undefined) > { > $('someid').hide() // or whatever you plan to do > } > > this cuts down on a function call of invoke and the CSS parser looking > for a CSS selector that matches > > On Aug 30, 1:40 pm, Walter Lee Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > You're welcome. I gave up being surprised what IE does somewhere back > > in 1998. > > > > Walter > > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's very clever. Mostly I am surprised that only IE pukes on > > > what I assume to be a very common problem... > > > > > Anyway, thanks! > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Walter Lee Davis > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The easiest way around this is to write your code so it fails > > > gracefully. Either one of these will work: > > > > > $$('#noSuchElement').invoke(yourFunction); > > > > > or > > > > > var elm = $('noSuchElement'); > > > if (elm) yourFunction(); > > > > > The first one is my favorite, because it swallows any errors. If > > > you're saying that you're getting an error from IE just from trying > > > to use $('noSuchElement') all by itself, not actually trying to use > > > the return from that, then the first method is what I would advise. > > > > > Walter > > > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > > > I am sure this is a FAQ... but in IE prototype (version 1.7) throws > > > an error when there is a reference to an ID that is not on the page > > > (e.g., $('noSuchElement)). Is there some trick or idiom to work > > > around this? > > > > > -- > > > Shane McCarron > > > [email protected] > > > > > -- > > > 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 athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en > > > . > > > > > -- > > > 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 athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en > > > . > > > > > -- > > > Shane McCarron > > > [email protected] > > > > > -- > > > 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 athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en > > > . > > -- > 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. > > -- Shane McCarron [email protected] -- 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.
