Hi John,
I liked them. If a jQuery object is "array-like", it makes sense to
have the array methods, it's very convenient. And as slice() remains
this seems inconsistent.
I think this was a documentation problem more than anything - if
anyone is going to create methods named to native ones, it b
> Nice! And hopefully with no significant hit on performance?
Not sure yet - haven't run the numbers, but there will be a hit.
--John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To p
Nice! And hopefully with no significant hit on performance?
--
Frode
On Feb 25, 7:44 pm, John Resig wrote:
> Ok, just to chime in again - I removed the sort/splice/push methods from
> jQuery:http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4250
>
> I made sure that there was no longer a need for them in Sizzle.
>
Ok, just to chime in again - I removed the sort/splice/push methods from jQuery:
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4250
I made sure that there was no longer a need for them in Sizzle.
--John
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM, prefect wrote:
>
> You mean instead of Array.sort? Well, yes, because I'm n
You mean instead of Array.sort? Well, yes, because I'm not only
interested in sorting DOM nodes in an array, I want to rearrange them
in the DOM as well. So it's basically just a convenience plugin,
wrapping Array.sort and performing the DOM rearrangements afterwards.
My brief and cursory search o
Just to put my finger on the cake, is there any special reason you're
using a custom plugin instead of the available sort() method?
On Feb 24, 8:27 pm, prefect wrote:
> To the defence of jQuery here, I don't think that would work. As I
> understand, the purpose of aliasing those methods is to ma
To the defence of jQuery here, I don't think that would work. As I
understand, the purpose of aliasing those methods is to make the
jQuery object work transparently as an Array object when passed to
Sizzle.
All in all, this was not a lot of trouble for me. Luckily I worked out
pretty fast what wa
>> Hijacking a thread is even worse. <<
I know, I know...
Humble apologies -- no intention to hijack the thread :-(.
Sam
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Klaus Hartl wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb., 15:23, Sam Dutton wrote:
> > Really sorry -- I replied to the group and forgot to change the subject
>
On 24 Feb., 15:23, Sam Dutton wrote:
> Really sorry -- I replied to the group and forgot to change the subject
> line.
Hijacking a thread is even worse.
--Klaus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQu
Really sorry -- I replied to the group and forgot to change the subject
line.
Thanks for the link.
Sam
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM, John Resig wrote:
>
> Umm - this seems to be pretty off-topic for the current thread. But
> the Env.js stuff in jQuery core is very old at this point.
>
> I
Umm - this seems to be pretty off-topic for the current thread. But
the Env.js stuff in jQuery core is very old at this point.
I recommend that you visit the Env.js google group:
http://groups.google.com/group/envjs
And grab the code from the current, active, fork:
http://github.com/thatcher/env
I want to set up automated tests with QUnit as part of our build process
(using Ant/Cruise) along the lines of this article:
http://ejohn.org/projects/bringing-the-browser-to-the-server/.
I've installed Rhino 1.7R1 and downloaded env.js from the above page.
JavaScript code works as expected in th
Those 'internal' methods could also be prefixed with an underscore as
an easy solution to avoid conflicts. It is considered by many in the
PHP world as a convention and best-practice to prefix all protected
and private members with an underscore.
Just an idea.
-Trey
On Feb 24, 10:06 am, Robert
If I am not wrong, 'push', 'sort' and 'splice' functions are used only
in Sizzle (before the jQuery obj returns to the user), so it would be
safe to redefine those in plugins. Am I wrong?
On Feb 23, 10:19 pm, prefect wrote:
> I upgraded to jQuery 1.3.2 this evening, and was surprised by a weird
@John
jQuery uses some Sizzle internal details to gain some performance
enhancements.
If so, it is ok to me, but is it so much faster to pass jQuery empty
instance to Sizzle to avoid an $.fn.setArray call? I suppose that
array operations are pretty faster on Array instances.
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm,
.nodeSort? ^_^ That's probably my favorite.
jQuery primarily does dom, but don't forget that's actually not the only
thing. $(array).map(...); $(array|object).each(...); $.ajax.
Though ya, I can't track down any note about the .sort addition in the
release notes. At least not anything one woul
I see. Well, obviously it's not much of a hassle for me to change the
name of my plugin method. Would have been nice with a small mention of
that in the release notes though, unless there's somewhere else more
appropriate and easily available? It's kind of like introducing three
new jQuery methods
Personally, I'd avoid using any name in a plugin that is something
people do on an array. It might make sense from your plugin's POV, but
jQuery is meant to be an arrayish object, so you just cause ambiguity on
whether you're doing array stuff or dom stuff.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen
Well, currently it is necessary. The jQuery object is treated like an
array when it is passed in to the selector engine (and the selector
results are push'd, sort'd, and splice'd on accordingly).
It actually provided us with a decent speed-up, as well.
--John
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM,
19 matches
Mail list logo
