Doug said:
You're complaining about the amount of code, but want a lengthier
version (with comments)?
Yes, I do. Quantity is not quality. If a greater quantity of code
also increases the overall quality, I can accept the former.
The original code is commented, but I removed them from the paste
because it is indeed a lot of code for someone to look over.
Looks like as if you should follow the acknowledged programming principle
to split a larger algorithm into smaller chunks (top-down, or bottom-up
programming). This also increases your chance of finding the expression
that causes the memory leak yourself.
[...]
As for ineffiency - are you referring to the repeated occurences of
'skinElement[skinElementID]' instead of replacing them with something
like 'var element = skinElement[skinElementID]', and then using
'element',
For example. Another sign are repeated property accesses to `length' in
`for' statements which can be equally avoided. And a property access to
`length' should not be necessary for XML objects in E4X by the `for each'
control statement. There is also the possibility of an alternative of
comparing boolean values to comparing string values with .toString() ==
"True" or .toString() == "False".
or is there a better approach than switch/case?
There is. You can map one value to another one with an Object object.
If E4X, and therefore an ECMAScript Edition 3 conforming implementation,
is a dependency, instead of
var result = "foo";
switch (x)
{
case "1":
result += "bar";
case "2":
result += "baz";
// ...
default:
result += "blubb";
}
result += "Bar";
you can and should write
var
result = ["foo"],
map = {
"1": "bar",
"2": "baz"
// ...
};
result.push(
(x in map) ? map[x] : "blubb",
"Bar");
result = result.join("");
almost always. (Note that this Object object inherits some properties from
Object.prototype, but their names are not numeric. If you want or need to
consider those too, for example because a substring can possibly equal the
name of such a property, you will have to use a control statement such as
`switch' instead of the `in' operator. The value of that property will be
pushed to the array instead otherwise. But at least you can avoid the
inefficient stepwise string concatenation of `+='.)
HTH
PointedEars
