Possibly. While that would, functionally, work - it would provide a serious
speed hit (requiring that each available ["@"] expression be parsed for
every element that isn't matched.
Although, that would only be in the case of when you include ["@"] checks.
Aaron - you should file a ticket for this and I'll consider it.
--John
On 7/5/07, Aaron Heimlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, I'm wondering if something like this is feasible:
if ( (type == "" && !!z ||
type == "=" && z == m[5] ||
type == "!=" && z != m[5] ||
type == "^=" && z && !z.indexOf(m[5]) ||
type == "$=" && z.substr(z.length - m[5].length) == m[5] ||
(type == "*=" || type == "~=") && z.indexOf(m[5]) >= 0) ^ not ) {
tmp.push( a );
} else {
// Check jQuery.expr["@"] for custom attribute selectors
}
On 7/5/07, Diego A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would like to help but you've lost me there Aaron...
>
> Is it possible to attach an "else" to the "if" statement that replaced
> > it[1] that checks in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On 05/07/07, Aaron Heimlich < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/5/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, this was a really unfortunate change that had to be made. We
> > > really wanted to keep the extensible functionality of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it
> > > ended up being just to incredibly slow. Moving all of the code
> > > internal was the only way to receive any sort of speed up. Sorry
> > > about
> > > that guys.
> > >
> > > --John
> >
> >
> > Is it possible to attach an "else" to the "if" statement that replaced
> > it[1] that checks in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > [1]
> > http://dev.jquery.com/browser/tags/1.1.3.1/src/selector/selector.js#L345
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Heimlich
> > Web Developer
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://aheimlich.freepgs.com
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Aaron Heimlich
Web Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aheimlich.freepgs.com
