Oops. That reads way snarkier than it sounded in my head. Sorry.
On 2/13/14, 10:12 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
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
