On 2/13/14, 8:53 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Aye, but the question was which form of repeat was more efficient.
I thought you said that any repeat loop was equal to another, and just pointed out that an empty loop (your original test) didn't mean much until you put some code in it.
It's pretty well established that the "for each" form is a magnitude faster than the counting form. I was just responding to this:
I ran a 100,000 count loop with nothing in the repeat loop to do and it took 1 tick.
It was a trivial point: that an empty repeat loop of any form is going to be quick; it's the code inside that matters. In your examples, the code inside happens to be another repeat loop, but that's a different thing.
I suspect we're talking about the same thing and we don't know it. ;) -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode