On Jan 30, 6:57 am, Ricardo Tomasi <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure there is any difference in performance,
Nor am I, who mentioned performance? It's about using the tool that's
intended for the job.
> most animations
> use setTimeout instead of setInterval for better timing too (though
> it's irrelevant in this case).
Cool, self-deprecating arguments are easy to respond to.
> And it would require a bit more code.
It would require different code - less is not always more. Here's a
setInterval version:
(function(set) {
var i = 0, ref = setInterval(function() {
(set[i])? $(set[i++]).fadeIn(500) : clearTimeout(ref);
},100);
})( $('.sticky:hidden') );
which requires about 40 more characters - are programmers *that*
lazy? It can likely be more consise if I knew more about how to
access items in a jQuery object or the OP wanted to call it other than
as an anonymous function.
The reason for suggesting setInterval is that its purpose is to run a
command at a set interval, which seems to be what the OP is after.
There seems to be a mindset with jQuery that every statement must be
written in the form $(someSelector).doStuff()... rather than looking
at individual problems and coding accordingly. Hence it seems the
more appropriate setInterval function was overlooked in order to fit
in with jQuery's coding style.
--
Rob
