> On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:12 PM, "J. Landman Gay" <jac...@hyperactivesw.com> > wrote: > > It's pretty well established that the "for each" form is a magnitude faster > than the counting form.
Nitpicking, but "[order of] magnitude" doesn't come close to covering the efficiency. The example Bob gave, since there were only ten items in the line, dramatically *understates* the benefits of repeat for each, which scales with the length of the source. A 1,000 or 100,000 item source would show much more than a magnitude of improvement. _______________________________________________ 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
