Felix Geisendörfer wrote:
Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
- and it is obviously faster than a function call.
I figured that by now. I think Matt was much better at explaining why I
think an alternative exists() function is useful - it simply is the most
intuitive thing a new jQuery user looks for. I also agree with his
hasClass argument. I love the is() function, but I would have taken me a
long time to find it if I my question was phrased "Who can I determine
if an element has a certain class".is() is more powerful but not nearly
as intuitive as hasClass would be for new users.
In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n)
and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for
compatibility with old code.
There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n]
and .length.
I disagree. Whenever you need to sort the elements in an <ul> or
something then you'll have to use the Array.sort() function, so you need
to do $('ul li').get().sort(...). Here is an example of where I needed
this functionality: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1632218532
It's not a big deal that I have to call get(), but it would be a big
problem if it wasn't there!
What about
Array.prototype.sort.apply( $('li') );
Not sue if that'll work...
--Klaus
