Hey, thanks for your thoughts. I thought this issue over last night
and have come up with the following solution:
Absolute Animations:
"50px"
"-50px"
Relative Animations:
"+=50px"
"-=50px"
I'm going to be pushing this live in an update this weekend, so that
it's fixed quickly. (In the future, stuff like this should be brought
up on the jquery-dev list.)
--John
On 9/12/07, Wizzud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The code ...
>
> // If a +/- token was provided, we're doing a relative animation
> if ( parts[1] )
> end = ((parts[1] == "-" ? -1 : 1) * end) + start;
>
> ... is based on the assumption that any value with a leading +/- indicator
> is a relative animation.
> Unfortunately this means that it can't (currently!) cope with absolute
> animation in a negative range. For example, if you want to animate anything
> from currentValue TO -y it will translate that into animate from
> currentValue BY -y, simply because of the negative sign in front of y.
> With positives, in mathematical terms x (unsigned) is equivalent to +x, so
> purposefully inserting a plus sign could be interpreted as a relative
> movement as opposed to a positive absolute. However, you can only get
> relative changes to be recognised by sending a String, ie. {top:+234} will
> be taken as absolute, whereas {top:'+234'} will be taken as relative. This
> is because (at least in Firefox!) the number loses the plus sign as being
> irrelevant, so conversion to String for pattern recognition of the leading
> '+' will never have a leading '+'!
>
> This leaves 2 questions:
> 1. How do you get around it until it's fixed?
> 2. How do you fix it?
>
> (1) Work-around. There are 2 ways (I think).
> Either: Try sending the change through as a String with a leading space, eg
> instead of animate({marginTop:-2492}), try animate({marginTop:' -2492'}).
> (This worked for me in a very simple test)
> Or: Translate any absolute movement to a negative position into a relative
> movement before calling animate, eg. get current marginTop yourself and work
> out the relative change required
>
> (2) Fix. Hmmm. There are undoubtedly lots of possible solutions and I
> hesitate to suggest one in favour of any other, but ... seeing as a String
> has to be used to get the leading '+' sign recognised, why not make relative
> changes be enforced by a double sign.
> For example:
> animate({top:234}) = absolute change to 234px
> animate({top:'+234em'}) = absolute change to 234em
> animate({top:-234}) = absolute change to -234px
> animate({top:'-234%'}) = absolute change to -234%
> animate({top:'++234'}) = relative change by 234px
> animate({top:'+-234'}) = relative change by -234px
> animate({top:'--234em'}) = relative change by -234em
> animate({top:'-+234%'}) = relative change by +234%
>
> [ NB 'double-signing' numbers:
> animate({top:++234}) = javascript error, invalid increment operand
> animate({top:--234}) = javascript error, invalid decrement operand
> animate({top:+-234}) = absolute change to -234px
> animate({top:-+234}) = absolute change to -234px ]
>
> In the above examples, the direction of the first sign doesn't matter - it
> could be a '+' or a '-', all it does is indicate that the change is
> relative. For that matter, it could be something else, like an 'r' instead
> of a +/-, eg animate({top:'r234'}) or animate({top:'r-234'}), but I'm not
> sure whether that might not be more confusing. Allowing either a '+' or a
> '-' could allow users to more easily apply the 'relative' directive
> depending upon how they work out and construct their values.
>
> Anyway, to make this 'double-signing' work would require 2 changes (v1.2
> source):
> At roughly line 2578...
> // var parts = val.toString().match(/^([+-]?)([\d.]+)(.*)$/),
> var parts = val.toString().match(/^([+-]*?)([\d.]+)(.*)$/),
> And roughly 2592...
> // If 'double-signed', we're doing a relative animation
> if ( parts[1] )
> // end = ((parts[1] == "-" ? -1 : 1) * end) + start;
> end = ((parts[1].substr(parts[1].length-1) == "-" ? -1 : 1) *
> end) +
> (parts[1].length>1 ? start : 0);
>
> As I stated at the start, this is only a suggestion and may turn out to be
> non-viable in the bigger picture - but it does seem to work (bearing in mind
> I'm only testing in Firefox!).
>
>
> bmsterling wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if this is any more help, but looking at the core around line
> > 2593,
> > it looks like you check for a minus sign and then add that to the start
> > position/style and your comments says:
> >
> > "// If a +/- token was provided, we're doing a relative animation"
> >
> > But yet you are not looking, explicitly, for a plus sign.
> >
> > Well, hope this helps in some way.
> >
> > On 9/11/07, Benjamin Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Will do, I also just did some testing and it looks like it happens when a
> >> minus sign is in play. I will post my findings to the bug report.
> >>
> >> On 9/11/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like a true bug. Could you submit a bug report?
> >> > http://dev.jquery.com/
> >> >
> >> > --John
> >> >
> >> > On 9/11/07, Benjamin Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > Url in question:
> >> > > http://benjaminsterling.com/experiments/jqGalViewV2/
> >> > >
> >> > > At about line 87 and then again at line 91 I have the following:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > $holder.animate({marginTop:-($mainImgContainer.height()*index)},'1000',
> >> > > opts.tnease);
> >> > >
> >> > > Depending on the link at bottom clicked, the marginTop gets set to
> >> > what ever
> >> > > $mainImgContainer.height()*index adds up to, but with a
> >> > > minus infront. So if you click on eight you get -2492. And when you
> >> > > clicked 7, you would get -2136. In 1.1.3 this worked fine[1]. But
> >> > with 1.2
> >> > > it will just add up the marginTop, so -2492 and -2136 becomes -4628.
> >> > >
> >> > > In an earlier post, John[2] suggested that the animation method only
> >> > took in
> >> > > integers, so if I do:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> $holder.animate({marginTop:parseInt(-($mainImgContainer.height()*index))},'1000',
> >> >
> >> > > opts.tnease);
> >> > >
> >> > > It should work, but sadly, still adds up. Is this a true bug, or am
> >> I
> >> > > missing something?
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] http://benjaminsterling.com/experiments/jqGalView
> >> > > [2]
> >> > >
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_thread/thread/705cd47864c22c49/485702b3f03547c5#485702b3f03547c5
> >> >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Benjamin Sterling
> >> > > http://www.KenzoMedia.com
> >> > > http://www.KenzoHosting.com
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Benjamin Sterling
> >> http://www.KenzoMedia.com
> >> http://www.KenzoHosting.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Benjamin Sterling
> > http://www.KenzoMedia.com
> > http://www.KenzoHosting.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Animation-bug-in-1.2-tf4426383s15494.html#a12634375
> Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
