On Sep 17, 12:46 pm, David Duymelinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for your example couldn't you do something like
>
> var c = a+b; $("...:lt(c)");
>
> Using a method you would have to do that so you save some bytes.
Absolutely, but it's still inelegant, IMO. i find $("...").lt(a+b) to
be clearer.
Part of my dislike of the stringified selectors, as opposed to
functional ones, is based upon lots of experience writing file parsers
(primarily in C++, e.g. the file format parsers for http://s11n.net).
Outputing data is easy, but parsing data is amazingly problematic and
error-prone. So when i see mini-languages encoded in strings, my gut
instinctively wrenches (probably more out of sympathy for the parser
maintainer than any other reason).
> I don't care if i have to use a selector or a method, i agree with you
> methods come more natural for long time programmers, i'm just trying to
> understand why some functionalty decisions are made.
i think the main reason lt/gt were removed was "because you can do the
same thing with slice()". John Resig said in a post a week or so ago
that they were also removed because "they did only one thing, and
didn't do it terribly well" (or something to that effect). Fair
enough, but then i would prefer that x.lt(n) be kept and implemented
in terms of $( ":lt(n)",x), or vice versa.
:)
