You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.
We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.
Required fields*
-
+1 from me, certainly simpler and cleaner. And even the original array is preserved!kapa– kapa2012年07月24日 09:19:02 +00:00Commented Jul 24, 2012 at 9:19
-
Is it efficient way to do this? I mean is it faster tan mine solution?Om3ga– Om3ga2012年07月24日 09:22:12 +00:00Commented Jul 24, 2012 at 9:22
-
1@al0ne evenings: well, it is certainly faster to read if you ask me. ;) Other than that I can't imagine any use case where the difference in speed of both of those solutions would be even noticeable. I would always recommend starting from the most readable way to write your code and only consider optimising it for speed when you profile it and when it really matters. Now when I'm thinking about it there may be even more elegant solution which I may post in few minutes.rsp– rsp2012年07月24日 09:36:32 +00:00Commented Jul 24, 2012 at 9:36
lang-js