> That's pretty neat code. But if I have an error in JavaScript then I > prefer the code to break where the error is. If I was using a debugger > to inspect the stack then I wouldn't be able to debug this because the > error has passed.
That's not true, observe: http://ejohn.org/files/handler-break.png "I wouldn't be able to debug this" that's also not true - just pop this open in Firebug and you'll see it point back to the correct line: http://ejohn.org/files/handler-error.html [Break on this error] throw new Error("test"); handler-...rror.html (line 19) > And mentioning performance is a red herring. How so? The performance overhead of event handling of huge concern for us - we're in the process of trying to reduce any overhead that might exist, not increase it. I tossed up a test: http://ejohn.org/files/handler-ready.html Dean Time: 174ms Normal Time: 1ms (in Firefox 3) Dean Time: 12ms Normal Time: 0ms (in Safari 3) Dean Time: 161ms Normal Time: 3ms (in Opera 9.6) This means that doing an extra event dispatch is anywhere from 12 to 174x slower than normal execution. --John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
