> > But I don't think we disagree at all. I wasn't talking about .get() with no > arguments, but rather .get(n) and .size(), which are just slower synonyms > for [n] and .length. Yeah I agree with you on that. I just read: 'we should get rid of the get() function' and freaked : p
-- Felix -------------------------- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Michael Geary wrote: >>> 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! >> > > That's a good point about .get() with no arguments - it gives you a genuine > Array object which can be quite useful. > > But I don't think we disagree at all. I wasn't talking about .get() with no > arguments, but rather .get(n) and .size(), which are just slower synonyms > for [n] and .length. > > -Mike > > >
