Just in case you want some background knowledge... jQuery.makeArray uses a reversed loop, to improve perfomance. That's why the indexes are set like that.
Cheers -- Ariel Flesler http://flesler.blogspot.com/ On 7 jul, 20:43, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The array returned by .get() does have its elements in the correct order. > The bug is actually in your code: > > > for(ai in arr) { txt.push(arr[ai].innerHTML); } > > You can't use a "for...in" loop on an array and expect to get consistent > results. The order of enumeration is implementation dependent. It may be in > numerical order, or it may be in the order the elements were added to the > array, or anything else. You may note that you get different results in IE7 > and Firefox 3. > > A for...in loop also enumerates non-array-element properties of the array. > For example, if any JavaScript code or library adds methods to > Array.prototype (and many libraries do this), those methods will also be > enumerated in your for...in loop. > > A numeric for loop would work correctly: > > for( i = 0, n = arr.length; i < n; ++i ) > txt.push(arr[i].innerHTML); > > The reason .each works correctly is that it does a numeric for loop like > that. > > What changed in 1.2.6? > > The code you found in makeArray does assign the elements into the correct > array indices but it does them backwards chronologically. IOW, makeArray is > assigning elements in this order: > > ret[2] = array[2]; > ret[1] = array[1]; > ret[0] = array[0]; > > That's perfectly valid code, of course, but a for...in loop on the "ret" > array will give inconsistent results. A correct numeric for loop will not be > bothered by that. > > In 1.2.3 the loop in makeArray ran in forward order: > > ret[0] = array[0]; > ret[1] = array[1]; > ret[2] = array[2]; > > All that said, I wonder if it wise for makeArray to be running this loop in > reverse, just because of problems like this. Would be that much less > efficient to run the loop in forward order? > > There's some further discussion in the ticket for this code change: > > http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/2619 > > -Mike > > > > > From: joelarson > > > I have just noticed that the order of elements returned by > > .get() seem to have been reversed in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6. > > Interestingly, each seems to run in the expected order (from > > first element to last as encountered in the document). To > > demonstrate: > > > ---------------------------------- > > <script src="http://jqueryjs.googlecode.com/files/jquery-1.2.5.js";></ > > script> > > <span>1</span><span>2</span><span>3</span> > > <script language=JavaScript><!--// > > $(function() { > > var arr=$("span").get(); > > var txt=[]; > > for(ai in arr) { txt.push(arr[ai].innerHTML); } > > alert("via get(): "+txt.join(",")); > > $("span").each(function(i,o) { alert("via each #"+i > > +".html="+o.innerHTML); }); > > }); > > //--></script> > > ---------------------------------- > > > Your first alert will show "via get(): 3,2,1". Your next 3 > > alerts will show 1,2,3 in order as the innerhtml. > > > This seems to come from around line 1133 of the > > jquery-1.2.5.js (around the same line in 1.2.6), where the > > way the array is filled in makeArray is: > > > ---------------------- > > while( i ) > > ret[--i] = array[i]; > > ---------------------- > > (which obviously builds a backwards return array) > > > whereas in jquery-1.2.4.js line 1125 is code: > > > ---------------------- > > for ( var i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; i++ ) > > ret.push( array[ i ] ); > > ----------------------- > > > It seems to me that the get() must return the elements in the > > document specified order. Even though this is not spelled > > out in the specification it seems to be the only rational behavior. > > > If my assumption is correct then, the easiest way to fix is to insert: > > > ------------ > > ret.reverse(); > > ------------ > > > at line 1141 of 1.2.6.js (or equivalent in future 1.2.7). > > > I have not found any posts on this or notes anywhere, but it > > is possible I do not know every relavent area to check. So > > don't beat me up if this is known or desired behavior-- just > > tell me where I should have looked. Thanks!- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
