Let's say I want to get the paragraph containing the caret. I might have:
var node = window.getSelection().getRangeAt(0).startContainer;
// node is either Element or Text
var para = (Object.isElement( node ) ?
$(node).up( 'p' )
: $(no
Hi all,
I've come up with a new way of handling $super (which I can't imagine
is unique, it's just new to me) which is markedly more efficient than
our current $super on all of the browsers I've tried it on. I'm
wondering whether we should consider it for Prototype 2.
Executive summary:
Pros -
Hey gang,
I took a look at this issue a while ago, in a blog post that generated a
fair bit of discussion and spin off investigations (see
http://www.google.com/search?q=inheritance+performance+javascript) so I'll
try to weigh in. However I'm in the middle of an extended road trip, so I
don't hav
Hi Richard,
Thanks for that.
I like the terseness and clarity of this.base() although I'd have
concerns about that making it difficult for people to retrofit their
classes ("base" being a fairly common word). I do _not_ mean that I
think "callSuper" is a great name; I don't and I expect suggest
Hi,
I think the speed improvement definitely merits going into. I would suggest
the helper be called $super so when converting, the relationship is evident.
I have to admit that passing arguments in feels odd to me though.
Allen Madsen
http://www.allenmadsen.com
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:09 AM, T
On Friday 04 September 2009 14:09:32 T.J. Crowder wrote:
> [...] I do _not_ mean that I
> think "callSuper" is a great name; I don't and I expect suggestions
> like yours to result in a better name. But something unlikely to
> clash makes it simpler for people to do a global search-and-replace t
@Allen & @Jim,
Gets my vote.
-- T.J. :-)
On Sep 4, 3:05 pm, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Friday 04 September 2009 14:09:32 T.J. Crowder wrote:
>
> > [...] I do _not_ mean that I
> > think "callSuper" is a great name; I don't and I expect suggestions
> > like yours to result in a better name. But so
Hi all,
In the 1.6.1 source, we're grabbing a reference to Array's `slice`
method and then using that in a variety of places to copy subsets (or
sometimes entire sets) of arguments, like so:
var slice = Array.prototype.slice;
//. ...
function bind(context) {
if (arguments.length < 2 &&
Hi again folks,
This thread[1] about using Array.prototype.slice to copy arguments
made me wonder whether the speed improvements I found had more to do
with the fact my implementation of the new mechanism had its own copy-
the-args function (which is faster than using `slice` on most
browsers; se
Hi.
___
| Maruku tells you:
+---
| Could you please format this better?
| I see that " compatibility, through Number#succ."
is left after the raw HTML
Hi Richard,
Yeah, see the PDoc mailing list[1]. Maruku is a no-go, too. :-
( Tobie's getting very frustrated (as am I).
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/pdoc?lnk=
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com
On Sep 4, 4:59 pm, Richard Quadling wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
On Sep 4, 8:15 am, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've come up with a new way of handling $super (which I can't imagine
> is unique, it's just new to me) which is markedly more efficient than
> our current $super on all of the browsers I've tried it on. I'm
> wondering whether we should con
Hi Juriy,
Thanks for that. Yes, it was the function decompilation (and the on-
the-fly bind) that made me look for another solution.
I was unaware of the performance implication of arguments.callee, and
*WOW* does it make a speed difference (see below). The good thing is
that this solution doe
We have a rewrite of function.js waiting to be included. It does
something even smarter thanks to a great idea by Broofa.
We'll add it in as soon as we've handled our pdoc and website issues.
Best,
Tobie
On Sep 4, 5:03 pm, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the 1.6.1 source, we're grabbin
On Sep 4, 2:54 pm, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
> Hi Juriy,
>
> Thanks for that. Yes, it was the function decompilation (and the on-
> the-fly bind) that made me look for another solution.
>
> I was unaware of the performance implication of arguments.callee, and
> *WOW* does it make a speed differenc
On Sep 4, 7:39 pm, Tobie Langel wrote:
> We have a rewrite of function.js waiting to be included. It does
> something even smarter thanks to a great idea by Broofa.
>
> We'll add it in as soon as we've handled our pdoc and website issues.
That patch looks good to go [1] (I think we all agreed on
16 matches
Mail list logo
