I did not think “snarky” when I read your post. Whenever discussing technical things, it probably always sounds snarky. I’ve second guessed some of my own posts for that reason, But no fear, I take everything I read on this list from long time posters as what it is: Expert opinions from professionals.
Bob On Feb 13, 2014, at 22:53 , J. Landman Gay <jac...@hyperactivesw.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
