> 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

Reply via email to