That's very interesting. I've never used private since I had the impression that the only thing it did was stop the handler from being called outside of the script it appears in.
But it seems there is a performance benefit too. Why would that be, I wonder. I understand that the engine only needs to look in the current script for a private handler, but isn't that where the search for a handler starts anyway? On Mon Feb 16 2015 at 3:11:22 PM BNig <bernd.niggem...@uni-wh.de> wrote: > Hi Jacque, > > > J. Landman Gay wrote > > This is getting to be just too much fun. I think Geoff was right, we > > don't need to initialize sNum because we don't care if we go into > > negative territory. And since the handler isn't actually using the value > > of the line, we can omit passing it by removing "each". So it could be > > even shorter/faster this way: > > > > local sNum > > function reverseText @pList > > sort lines of pList numeric by reverseSort() > > return pList > > end reverseText > > > > private function reverseSort > > subtract 1 from sNum > > return sNum > > end reverseSort > > > > I'm not sure the private declaration is necessary, but it won't hurt. My > > thinking is that the engine only looks for a private function in the > > current script, but it also looks in the current script first when the > > function isn't private. If the function is there, it seems that the > > speed would be the same in either case. The engine would stop looking at > > the same place. > > > > Passing the list with @ is a good addition. > > > > Then there is Alex's version which is a different animal. > > > > > > On 2/16/2015 12:58 PM, BNig wrote: > >> Hi Peter, > >> > >> you also might want to check your reverse algorithm on 7.x.x > >> > >> in my testing Jacque's initial post with little tweaks is as fast as > your > >> code and faster on 7.x.x (tested on 7.0.2 rc2) In my testing it took > only > >> 60% of the time compared to yours on 7.x.x > >> Of course Alex Tweedly's ingenious inverse code leaves everything in the > >> dust, except on 7.x.x. > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> on mouseUp > >> put field 1 into tData > >> put the milliseconds into t > >> get reverseText (tData) > >> put the milliseconds - t into field "fRes" > >> put it into field 1 > >> end mouseUp > >> > >> local sNum > >> function reverseText @pList > >> put the number of lines in pList into sNum > >> sort lines of pList numeric by reverseSort(each) > >> return pList > >> end reverseText > >> > >> private function reverseSort > >> subtract 1 from sNum > >> return sNum > >> end reverseSort > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> private and @ help when the line count is high. > >> > > > funny, nobody likes "private" > > It save up to 20 % all else equal. > > On about 44000 lines 5 items on each line > > with private 86 ms, without 106 ms LC 6.7.2 > > with private roughly 180 ms, without 200 ms on LC 7.0.2 rc2 (times vary > much > more on LC 7.0.2 rc2 than on LC 6.7.2 > > Kind regards > Bernd > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution. > 278305.n4.nabble.com/Reverse-a-list-tp4688611p4688925.html > Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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
