Well, if you're arguing that you might as well argue that .remove() should
return an empty set - since the elements are no longer in the document.
--John
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, me and phiggins were looking at TaskSpeed bench and he spotted an
> error in my Pure DOM which was basically the reason we realized every single
> test there was wrong.
>
> let's do an example. My document has 3 divs:
>
> '<div><div></div></div><div></div>'
>
> one is nested ... now I do this:
>
> $("div").html("leak?").length; // which is 3
>
> I am not sure if all libraries are managing the case in the same way but I
> would not leave that div wrapped in that variable.
>
> If jQuery object related search is saved, it could be useful to re-search
> it after each operation otherwise problems like this will be truly common
> and leaks more probable than pure DOM manipulation.
>
> That test for example is now:
>
> var div = document.getElementsByTagName("div"), i = 0;
> while(div[i])
> div[i++].innerHTML = "leak?";
> return i;
>
> because getElementsByTagName is live and I do not want to trap anything.
>
> Makes sense?
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, you could just manipulate this[0], this[1], etc. directly - but it's
>> strongly preferred that you return the new result with pushStack (as you've
>> done) since that conforms with the typical way of constructing jQuery
>> methods and plugins.
>>
>> --John
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM, jeanph01 <jeanp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I'm creating a jquery plugin that alter an object to remove duplicates
>>> in it. My problem is that a variable that access the old selector
>>> result does not contain the same elements that it would have contained
>>> if it would have been executed after the duplicates removal.
>>> To illustrate :
>>>
>>> var v = $('div); // 150 objects
>>> v.removeDuplicate(); // remove 10 duplicates
>>> // here v still point to 150 objects
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my plugin :
>>>
>>> jQuery.fn.__sort = function() {
>>> return this.pushStack([].sort.apply(this, arguments), []);
>>> };
>>>
>>> jQuery.fn.sort = function(func) {
>>> function internalSort(a,b){
>>> var compA = $(a).text();
>>> var compB = $(b).text();
>>> return (compA <> compB) ? 1 : 0;
>>> }
>>> if (!$.isFunction(func)) {
>>> func = internalSort;
>>> }
>>> return this.__sort(func);
>>> };
>>>
>>> jQuery.fn.removeDuplicate = function() {
>>> var that = $(this).sort();
>>>
>>> $(this).each(function() {
>>> var pos = that.index($(this));
>>> var next = that.eq(pos+1);
>>> var eq = (next.text() === $(this).text());
>>>
>>> if (eq) { next.remove();}
>>> });
>>>
>>> // enable chaining, updating selector
>>> return $($(this).selector);
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> The only solution I found is to return $(this) with an updated
>>> selector. But I would have had to remember to update the content of my
>>> variable before calling the plugin.
>>> ex:
>>> v = v.removeDuplicates();
>>>
>>> Can I update $(this) from within removeDuplicate() ??
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> note: I posted this on the jQuery Plugins discussion put it seems
>>> dead, or full of spam.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
