Making "inline calling" would be avoided if not really necessary.
Is the speed difference of two solutions relevant at this point?
However, I am sure that John will consider this optimization too if
needed.
On Mar 1, 8:01 pm, ricardobeat <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can preserve the index without resorting to get (and without
> affecting performance) by using a ternary:
>
> jQuery.fn.eq = function( i ) {
> return this.pushStack( this[i<0 ? i+this.length : i], 'eq', i )
>
> }
>
> cheers,
> - ricardo
>
> On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An slightly slower but more robust solution would be:
>
> > eq: function( i ) {
> > return this.pushStack( this.get(i), 'eq', i )
>
> > }
>
> > The main difference is that the ret.selector would preserve the
> > initial index (relative if negative).
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:44 pm, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If this solution seems ok, I would update the
> > > tickethttp://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4188.
>
> > > On Feb 28, 8:50 pm, ricardobeat <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nice catch, that makes sense. Added it to the test page, it has no
> > > > significant impact on performance.
>
> > > > cheers,
> > > > - ricardo
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 7:27 pm, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Since .get(-1) will be supported, eq(-1) would be supported too (?).
>
> > > > > So your implementation needs some extra code:
>
> > > > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > > > if ( i < 0 )
> > > > > i += this.length;
> > > > > return this.pushStack( this[i], 'eq', i )
>
> > > > > }
>
> > > > > However this solution would be still faster then the one
> > > > > onhttp://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4188, I suppose.
>
> > > > > On Feb 26, 11:02 pm, ricardobeat <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Right, thanks!
>
> > > > > > Using pushStack seems ok, it's still chainable and keeps the
> > > > > > selector
> > > > > > state, while still being at least twice faster.
>
> > > > > >http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4262http://jquery.nodnod.net/cases/177/run
>
> > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > - ricardo
>
> > > > > > On Feb 26, 11:28 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Well, first I would argue that the two are not equivalent.
>
> > > > > > > $($(...)[x]) doesn't maintain the stack. You can no longer do:
> > > > > > > $(...).eq(1).addClass("test").end().appendTo("#foo");
> > > > > > > $($(...)[x]) doesn't maintain the internal selector state for
> > > > > > > plugins.
> > > > > > > For example if you checked $(...).eq(1).selector you'd see:
> > > > > > > ".slice(1,
> > > > > > > 2)"
>
> > > > > > > So, with that in mind, if there were ways to maintain that
> > > > > > > functionality and still get a performance speed-up, I'd
> > > > > > > definitely be
> > > > > > > open to it.
>
> > > > > > > --John
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ricardo Tomasi
> > > > > > > <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Creating two jQuery objects + a lookup $( $(...)[x] ) is faster
> > > > > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > simple $(...).eq(x). That doesn't make much sense.
>
> > > > > > > > Currently the eq function looks like this:
> > > > > > > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > > > > > > return this.slice( i, +i + 1 );
> > > > > > > > },
>
> > > > > > > > Are there any downsides to changing it to this (object unique
> > > > > > > > IDs,
> > > > > > > > chaining)?
>
> > > > > > > > eq: function( i ) {
> > > > > > > > return jQuery(this[i]);
> > > > > > > > },
>
> > > > > > > > That offers a 25% to 40% speed improvement across all browsers.
> > > > > > > >http://jquery.nodnod.net/cases/177
>
> > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > > - ricardo
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
