Not really, right? You can still modify and re-place nodes that have
been removed from the dom, but not on nodes that have been destroyed.
<div id="bar"><p>hi</p><p>there</p></div>
var ps = $("#bar p").remove();
$("#bar").html("<p>hmm</p>");
ps.appendTo("#bar")
or some such.
Regards,
Peter
John Resig wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
