I never knew document.images was live. I thought it was static to the
page's images at load time. I'll have to remember that.
Thanks, Rob.
- Dash -
RobG wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 7:32 am, Cgnost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've created a custom tooltip function to be used on a website. I'm
>> trying to code it in such a way that by giving any img tag an
>> attribute with tooltip="productid" it will attach the correct
>> onmouseover and onmouseout event.
>>
>> Here is the code:
>>
>> loadEvents: function() {
>> var images = document.getElementsByTagName("img");
>>
>
> It seems David has already given you a solution you are happy with,
> however it's worth pointing out that the document already has an
> images collection ready for you to use:
>
> var images = document.images;
>
> It's a live collection, so as you add/remove images, they are
> automatically added/removed from the collection.
>
> Also, the number of lines of code is not any indicator of efficiency
> or speed. You will often find that looping over a collection is much
> quicker than using $$, and faster again than .each. If performance is
> an issue (and maybe it isn't for you) consider the above.
>
>
>> var myElement = null;
>>
>
> There is rarely any point in initialising a variable as null, if you
> use:
>
> var myElement;
>
> it is assigned a value of undefined, which is suitable in nearly all
> cases.
>
>
>> var myProductID = 0;
>>
>
> Same here. You are going so assign a value of the tool tip, so there
> doesn't seem much point in assigning a value of zero.
>
>
>
>> for (var i = 0; i < images.length; i++) {
>> myElement = images[i];
>> if (myElement.hasAttribute("tooltip")) {
>> myProductID =
>> myElement.getAttribute("tooltip");
>> Event.observe(myElement, 'mouseover',
>> function()
>> { productTooltip.show(myProductID,myElement); });
>>
>
> Here is where your issue comes from - both myProductID and myElement
> form closures back to their respective variables that are associated
> with the function's execution object. Their value in all cases will
> be whatever value was last assigned them before the function finished
> so all your handlers will have references to the same value.
>
> There are alternatives to that proposed by David - but if it suits,
> use it.
>
>
> --
> Rob
>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
