Don't you have to maintain classhops for each selector in a rule?
I'm just suggesting replacing classhops of a selector with the actual
class instead.
On 2006-09-12, at 10:22 EDT, Adam Wolff wrote:
> oh wait. because there are complex selectors (i.e. multiple classes
> associated with a single rule,) we'd have to make a fairly big
> change to
> do something like this.
>
> A
>
> On Sep 12, Adam Wolff wrote:
>
>> good thought!
>>
>> On Sep 12, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-12, at 01:06 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> + if ( rA._classhops != rB._classhops ){
>>>> + return (rA._classhops < rB._classhops ) ? -1 : 1;
>>>> + } else return (rA._lexorder < rB._lexorder ) ? 1 : -1;
>>>
>>> If you stored the class associated with the rule in the rule, you
>>> could
>>> simplify this (and eliminate the non-portable classhops
>>> computation) by
>>> saying:
>>>
>>> if (rA.class !== rB.class) {
>>> return (rA.class instanceof rB.class) ? -1 : 1;
>>> } else ...
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Laszlo-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
>>
_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
