Ricardo,
I am highly supporting this idea even at the cost of code size (to
some extent).
Also, more independent, normally means more maintainable and less
execution calls so should be faster too.
Diego Perini
On 2 Mar, 13:18, ricardobeat <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not really aware of the code practices in the core, but I thought
> keeping one method independent from the other was a good thing.
>
> On Mar 1, 6:31 pm, Robert Katić <robert.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
