Yeah why do you need to split it into an array? Or even use an regExpr ? CSS class names should be case sensitive anyway so i cant see why gool ol indexOf() shouldn't be enough to see if a class name is in there. After all you are just dealing with a string here
From: Arian Stolwijk [mailto:ar...@aryweb.nl] Sent: Saturday, 19 February 2011 3:48 AM To: mootools-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Moo] adding features to hasClass() Even faster: http://jsperf.com/moo-hasclass-alternative/3 On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Florence <rpflore...@gmail.com> wrote: http://jsperf.com/moo-hasclass-alternative Yeah, it appears to be faster (need to test more browsers). Only question is if it passes all the specs in all supported browsers. If it passes all the specs, then, as usual, fork core and specs (I like to create a branch too), push your changes, send a pull request. Nobody needs to be invited to improve MooTools :) On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Garret Wilson wrote: > I appreciate the quick, honest and accepting responses on this forum. > I'm still debating whether to convert my ~2005 library to use > MooTools, or simply update it to recent changes myself. Some things > make me want to move to MooTools, like when I look at all the element > size/position fixups I wrote that are probably out of date with > today's browsers. But some of the core content processing makes me > like what I have. Here's my old hasClass(): > > /**Determines whether the given element has the given class, using > DOM methods. Multiple class names are supported. > @param element The element that should be checked for class. > @param className The name of the class for which to check, or a > regular expression if a match should be found. > @return true if one of the element's class names equals the given > class name. > */ > hasClass:function(element, className) > { > var classNamesString=element.getAttribute("class"); //get the > element's class names > var classNames=classNamesString ? classNamesString.split(/\s/) : > EMPTY_ARRAY; //split out the class names > return className instanceof RegExp ? > classNames.containsMatch(className) : > classNames.contains(className); //return whether this class name is > one of the class names > }, > > 1. I note that the MooTools version uses a very brute-force string > based approach. That is, it "cleans" the string (using a regular > expression to change whitespace to spaces), then trims the string, > then fixes up the original string with surrounding spaced, then adds a > space to the test string, and then (finally!) walks through the string > with indexOf(). Since MooTools already starts the whole process with a > regex, anyway, isn't the above approach more efficient? > > 2. More importantly, I need to check against regular expressions. How > open would MooTools be to adding regex capability to methods such as > this? > > Thanks, > > Garret > > P.S. I haven't looked at my code in about five years. I'm not sure why > I didn't just bind hasClass() to Element.prototype. Any ideas? Did IE6 > or some similar nightmare prevent adding Element methods or something?
