The way you've used RegExp will also match partial matches; you look
for "rump" and get a match on "scrump"... not good. False positives.
@Yann: The contains method you listed is the Array method - not String
one which looks like this:
contains: function(string, separator){
return (separa
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 04:35, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> It isn't shocking that running hasClass()»contains()»indexOf() and
> set() is marginally slower than running only exec() (on a preexisting
> regex)»direct property set. Not that it isn't mildly interesting, just
> not anything actionab
It isn't shocking that running hasClass()»contains()»indexOf() and
set() is marginally slower than running only exec() (on a preexisting
regex)»direct property set. Not that it isn't mildly interesting, just
not anything actionable IMO.
It would be shocking if just indexOf()»direct property s
>
> But your benchmark still isn't balanced. For example, fn [1b] is using
> more pure JS/DOM functions and is implemented on Array, while fn [4]
> is using Moo overhead and is implemented on Element.
>
Really? [4] used className, so i wanted to see how big the change was when
using className in
But your benchmark still isn't balanced. For example, fn [1b] is using
more pure JS/DOM functions and is implemented on Array, while fn [4]
is using Moo overhead and is implemented on Element.
The most apt competitor to your className.RegExp is className.indexOf.
I adjusted fn [4] accordingly. I
> anyways... if you want performance avoid extra function calls when
> they aren't needed. all of the above could be done much simpler - the
> following example uses only 1 hasClass call:
>
> Element.implement({
>removeAllClassExcept: function(klass) {
>this.className = this.hasClass(kl
10 items
time1::: 0.6685
*time1a: 0.3263*
time2::: 0.6325
time3::: 0.52434
100 items
time1::: 0.4923
*time1a: 0.2901*4
time2::: 0.4503
time3::: 0.38425
1000 items
t
from the mooshell,
Win Vista64 FF3.6
time1::: 0.49606
time1a: 0.284
time2::: 0.44395
time3::: 0.348
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Yann Leretaille wrote:
> could somebody test this one with 100,100 & 10 Elements?
>
> My results:
> n
> FF 3.6, Linux, 64
FF 3.6 Windows 764bit:
1000:
time1::: 0.394
*time1a: 0.24195* - fastets
time2::: 0.338
time3::: 0.24803
100:
time1::: 0.5443
*time1a: 0.3122*
time2::: 0.49825
time3::: 0.3963
10:
time1::: 0.000
Avoid unnecessary function calls. The following uses only 1 extra call
to hasClass:
Element.implement({
removeAllClassExcept: function(klass) {
this.className = this.hasClass(klass) ? klass : '';
return this;
}
});
Performance is better ("time4"): http://mootools.net/shel
dude - would you like to borrow the "var" keyword? :P
anyways... if you want performance avoid extra function calls when
they aren't needed. all of the above could be done much simpler - the
following example uses only 1 hasClass call:
Element.implement({
removeAllClassExcept: function(klass)
could somebody test this one with 100,100 & 10 Elements?
My results:
n
FF 3.6, Linux, 64Bit FF 2.5.8,WinXP, 32Bit
1000
time1::: 0.33
*time1a: 0.20*
time2::: 0.30
time3::: 0.24time1::: 0.55
*time1a: 0.36*
time2::: 0.48
time3::: 0.38
100
time1::: 0.45
*time1a: 0.0
> This might be to do with TraceMonkey being en-/disabled on one of the
> testing machines... As far as I know, it's disabled by default in 64bit
> Linux, and perhaps in some other builds.
A promising idea, but I just tested on 3.5.7 with TM off and TM on and
the non-regex fn cleanly beats ou
This might be to do with TraceMonkey being en-/disabled on one of the
testing machines... As far as I know, it's disabled by default in 64bit
Linux, and perhaps in some other builds.
Barry
On 22/02/10 23:20, Dimitar Christoff wrote:
even through your benchmark:
time1: 0.000329
time2: 0.00022
I understand your point. Actually, benchmarking seems particualry difficult
for this one.
I created a mooshell wich creates a list with 1000 Elements, wich have 0-3
classes, with or without base_class.
The list ist cloned for each benchmark and i ran each methos is runned 10
times.
Here are the res
even through your benchmark:
time1: 0.000329
time2: 0.00022602
time3: 0.0001933
i am using FF 3.5.8(?)
even with advances in regex performance for webkit, hasClass uses
contains which uses indexOf... indexOf > regex, at least for now.
--
Dimitar Christoff - http://fragg
>- Method1: 0.000265s
>- Method2: 0.000297s
>- Method3: 0.000279s
> Looks like if my method is slightly faster...
Mmm, something is wrong with your benchmark.
Comparing your regex
[f1] t.set('class',new RegExp('base_class').exec(t.get('class')));
with the straightforward
[f2]t
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 00:28, Dimitar Christoff wrote:
> > Why not use RegExp?
> >
> speed. this will be slower.
>
I'm not sure about this. hasClass require string-operation anyway and with
RegExp, you can directly set the correct class without further comparing.
I made a small benchmark compari
> Why not use RegExp?
>
speed. this will be slower.
--
Dimitar Christoff - http://fragged.org/
Why not use RegExp?
Element.implement({
removeClassesExcept: function(klass) {
return this.set("class",new RegExp(klass).exec(this.get("class")));
}
});
If the RegExp /klass/ matches class, class is "klass", otherwise it's null.
Yann
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 23:32, Dimitar Christ
OK, how often are you going to be running the function that strips the
classes from a collection of els? How large is the usual collection?
-- Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail:
Hi,
The reason is that the classes are added via javascript (mootools)
according to user actions.
In basic terms this is used on a large list of (delegation is
used ;) ) some of which can be clicked and others not (they are
dates).
The "clickable" dates always need to remain clickable but, as the
Hey Chris,
I was just looking at this thread again and wondered what the
particulars were that necessitated a JS solution for this. Depending
on the environment, could the "clever" solution have been CSS-only?
http://mootools.net/shell/XdL9T/6/
Not saying this would apply, but I'm w
Or with my version:
Element.Implement({
'removeClassesExcept': function(baseClass){
this.set('class', this.get('class').split('
').filter(function(c){return c == this },baseClass)[0]);
}
})
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Sanford Whiteman <
sa...@cypressintegrated.com> wro
> Yes, But the question was from an array of controls:
When you implement on Element, you automatically implement on Elements
arrays. There is no need to implement on the generic Array.
Element.implement({
removeClassesExcept: function(klass) {
...
}
});
$('remove').addEvent('cli
Yes, But the question was from an array of controls:
http://mootools.net/shell/hv3Yv/
Array.implement({
removeClassesExcept: function(klass) {
this.map(function(ele, ndx) {
return ele.hasClass(klass) ? ele.set("class", klass) :
ele.erase("class");
});
}
});
On
(mooshell is down)
how about this over engineered solution:
var leaveOnlyThisClass = function(el, cl){
el.set('class', el.get('class').split(' ').filter(function(c){return c
== this },cl)[0]);
};
usage:
leaveOnlyThisClass($('divid'),'leave-only-me');
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Dimi
> Anyway, this way is just a function around the same basic logic... not
> really reaching the "cleverer" mark. :)
the 'clever' i could think of without involving garden gnomes was this:
Element.implement({
removeClassesExcept: function(klass) {
return this.hasClass(klass) ? this.set
> the mootools way
You forgot the "don't add base_class if it wasn't originally there"
part of the spec.
Anyway, this way is just a function around the same basic logic... not
really reaching the "cleverer" mark. :)
-- S.
the mootools way
http://mootools.net/shell/TV5MM/
On Feb 14, 1:27 am, cbolson wrote:
> Thanks for that :)
> I am actually using something along those lines I was just hoping that
> there might be a "cleverer" way to do it (ie not remove then add
> again) :)
>
> Chris
>
> On 13 feb, 18:10, Sanfor
Thanks for that :)
I am actually using something along those lines I was just hoping that
there might be a "cleverer" way to do it (ie not remove then add
again) :)
Chris
On 13 feb, 18:10, Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
> http://mootools.net/shell/w4fc5/1/
>
> -- S.
31 matches
Mail list logo
