Tags: Marketing Research Applications And Case StudiesTerm Paper On Crcuit Breaker PdfBusiness Plan For MagazineHow To Write A Research Argument PaperCritical Thinking IntroductionExamples Of Persuasive EssaySeagull Reader EssaysThesis Mathematical ModelingEssay Vs ReportBombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki Essay
So every good developer knows the difference between =, == (and ===). Accessing the length property is very expensive in this case because the browser needs to re-compile the complete list (you never know if some node has appeared or disappeared) to calculate the length.In general you should avoid using get Elements By Tag Name as much as you can.Writing loops in several different ways depending on the content of the arrays is, again, quite confusing when you come to read someone's code and work out what they were trying to do.
The following loop uses the same number of lines, is no less efficient, and is *much* more obvious in terms of the author's intent. = null; obj = obj.offset Parent) The 'obj = foo' can be omitted if 'obj' has already been assigned.
With the last example you give, ('div = x[i]') it works fine in this particular case, but will not work for arrays which have null entries since it will exit as soon as it hits a null.
Posted by Lon on 15 January 2008 | Permalink Hi Peter Paul, your example using get Elements By Tag Name is dangerous. As a consequence if your 'do Something' removes the node you will skip the next one due to the way you traverse the list.
Either traverse backwards (which is much cheaper as well) or do it different (conditional increment of counter for instance), but don't do it the way you are proposing. Posted by Christopher Boomer on 15 January 2008 | Permalink This technique is one I have always strategically avoided to avoid confusing myself.
Although I doubt whether the removal of this calculation saves a lot of processing time, it's nonetheless something to keep in mind.
All in all, you can use the assignment operator Posted by Stewart Pratt on 14 January 2008 | Permalink The method you describe is neat, but it has one significant flaw in that because it's also a very common typo, when reading the code it's not always clear whether the author intended it or not.
In Java, the compiler gives you a warning for that !
(in java, this only work with boolean as integer are never converted into boolean...) Anyway in my sense, using the implicit conversion from integer to boolean should be avoided because it lacks clarity.
Posted by Peter Siewert on 14 January 2008 | Permalink I never thought to use the assignment opperator in the for() loop like that.
Generally for my versions of the find Position functions, I just use recursion and sidestep the whole loop question: function find Left(obj) function find Top(obj) It might have a slightly higher performance hit, but you cant really beat a 2 line function.