Many moons ago we were told that "in" was slow but it wouldn't surprise me
if it got better. If Scout says it is better and other tests indicate the
same, then it seems like a good change.
-Alex
On 1/2/14 7:53 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Any chance data can be null at that point? Does
Hi,
> Any chance data can be null at that point? Does your code handle that well?
Already handled in the ADG case but I check the other I've just changed.
if (typeof(data) == "object" || typeof(data) == "xml")
{
if (dataField != null)
if (dataField in da
>I know "in" can be expensive but so is try catch. I've run each though scout
>and it looks like the in operator is orders of magnitude faster and caused no
>garbage collection both when the field exists and when it >doesn't. Anyone
>have any insight/something to add?
Any chance data can be nu
Hi,
With that change it looks like the ADG tests run a few seconds faster but the
running time is a little variable.
Justin
Hi,
While looking at some data grid code I noticed this:
try
{
data = data[dataField];
}
catch(e:Error)
{
data = null;
}
And I was curious to why try catch is used rather than this:
