AFAIK, that's been corrected a long time ago - but I might be wrong.
On Jun 22, 2:59 am, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 6:30 am, Rebecca Blyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Finally, an aside on not having control over the HTML source:
> > I ran into this issue when using
On Jun 21, 2:35 pm, sed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure why this worked before, it must be related to the html/
> script being generated into the div from the ajax.updater rather than
> just being on the page.
Nope. It's sillier than that. Let's say you've got an element with an
ID of
Hi guys. I'm new in prototypejs and script.aculo.
But, lets consider Andrew Dupont's example again:
var f = new String("foo");
alert($(f)) //-> foo
alert(document.getElementById('foo')) //-> [object HTMLElement]
It has cause:
"When String( ) is used as a constructor with the new operator, it
r
On 6/22/07, Miha Zimin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Or it isn't good idea. What do you think?
Leave it as it is. The String function/constructor is maybe useful for other
things, but seldom for handling element IDs before passing them to the $
function. The current check is enough - it was en
> The String function/constructor is maybe useful for other things [...]
Like what exactly !?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-
On 6/22/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The String function/constructor is maybe useful for other things [...]
>
> Like what exactly !?
Like when casting something to string when toString is not sufficient. I
don't know when that may be.
I was just stating this: although this
I don't see the harm in adding the second condition "element
instanceof String"
you could use :
if(element && element.constructor == String)
This works for both "foo" and new String("foo");
I find that it is faster than using typeOf.
I have made very JavaScript heavy applications and noticed
On 6/22/07, jdalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Also I don't buy the "it hasn't been fixed since the beginning, so why
> fix it now?" argument.
Well, if in almost 2 years we have a first report about it only now, then it
sounds like a big edge case to me.
--~--~-~--~~---
On 6/22/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm actually getting faster results in Firefox for typeof in that
> particular case.
Me too. Try it for yourself:
http://gfx.neohub.com/benchmark/creator.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
I'm actually getting faster results in Firefox for typeof in that
particular case.
On Jun 22, 8:55 am, jdalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see the harm in adding the second condition "element
> instanceof String"
> you could use :
>
> if(element && element.constructor == String)
>
> This
If you run it more than once you get different results. Reguardless of
this benchmark (I got it to show .constructor was faster consistently
more times, IE)
Its a method of detecting a string that will fix the issue.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
And using : http://gfx.neohub.com/benchmark/creator.html
Firefox: slower by alot using constructor
IE : faster by alot using constructor
return ('hi'.constructor == String);
vs
return (typeof 'hi' == 'string');
IE: faster by alot using constructor
Firefox : mixed (sometimes slower sometimes fas
Hi Team,
I just wanted to make a small documentation request for
Enumerable.invoke. I discovered it useful that invoke returns the
processed array of items. The docs specify that invoke returns an
array, but it isn't clear that you can chain two invoke commands to call
two methods in succes
Thanks. It's not obvious to all, so I added one of your examples to the doc.
On 6/22/07, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I just wanted to make a small documentation request for
> Enumerable.invoke. I discovered it useful that invoke returns the
> processed array of items
Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> Thanks. It's not obvious to all, so I added one of your examples to
> the doc.
>
Awesome! That was faster than approving a wiki edit :P
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prot
15 matches
Mail list logo
