Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length - and it is obviously faster than a function call. In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n) and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for compatibility with old code. There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n] and .length. -Mike
_____ From: Felix Geisendörfer Sean, Mike: I agree with your notion that learning that the jQuery object is array-like (It'd be cool if it was a real array and .push / .sort would work on it) is very worthwhile. I knew that when I initially stumbled across the problem and knew that doing it via '.length' was one solution. I was only confused if it was the right way or could lead to undesired results as I was new to jQuery at this point and I didn't find it mentioned anywhere in specific. That's where my notion of an 'exists()' function could be useful comes from. But it's probably just something that should be put in the manual somewhere (if it isn't already in there and I missed it). -- Felix -------------------------- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Sean Catchpole wrote: I believe that learning jquery returns an array like object is more useful than creating a .exists() function. ~Sean
