Right, just saw that in the dictionary. But I'm still confused on why it results in less messages. Is it because the engine checks to see if there is a private handler before sending a message along the message path?
As Richard and Mark mentioned, seems like any handlers in an object's script that aren't called from anywhere else should be private. I wonder if the same holds true in a behavior script? On Mon Feb 16 2015 at 3:33:06 PM BNig <bernd.niggem...@uni-wh.de> wrote: > Hi Pete, > > > Peter Haworth wrote > > 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? > > > from the dictionary: > > > > Using private handlers when appropriate will also result in a performance > > gain as less messages are passed through the message path. > > Kind regards > Bernd > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution. > 278305.n4.nabble.com/Reverse-a-list-tp4688611p4688930.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
