On 17/08/07, Rob Desbois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know offhand how much overhead using .add() instead of the comma
> incurs?
> Is it just the additional function call?
> --rob
It is likely to be an additional function call or two, so the
difference is negligible. If you have the F
I am not sure about the additional overhead, but i find comma more
straight-forward because they are css selectors and we use commas to select
in css anyways.
-GTG
On 8/17/07, Rob Desbois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know offhand how much overhead using .add() instead of the
> comm
Does anyone know offhand how much overhead using .add() instead of the comma
incurs?
Is it just the additional function call?
I've always used comma in selectors but using .add() instead is much clearer
as it separates the selectors in an obvious manner.
--rob
On 8/15/07, Matt Stith <[EMAIL PROT
For the record, that's documented here:
http://docs.jquery.com/DOM/Traversing/Selectors#CSS_Selectors
--Erik
On 8/15/07, Erik Beeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> $('#X,.Y')
>
> --Erik
>
> On 8/15/07, rickdog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What is the cleanest way for ORing select resu
Matt Stith wrote:
I would do something like
$("#X").add(".Y");
Just group the selectors:
$('#X, .Y')
--Klaus
$('#X,.Y')
--Erik
On 8/15/07, rickdog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> What is the cleanest way for ORing select results, e.g. returning all
> DIVs with id="X" or class="Y"?
>
>
I would do something like
$("#X").add(".Y");
On 8/15/07, rickdog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> What is the cleanest way for ORing select results, e.g. returning all
> DIVs with id="X" or class="Y"?
>
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
