Bernd wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> Which version of LC did you test with?
>> I was under the impression that since LC switched to copy-on-write
>> for all >arguments we should no longer need to use "@" for
>> performance, only for for logic.
>
>
> I tested using LC 9 GM, what kind of results do you get?
Well, so much for copy-on-write.
As written:
31
84
109
81
After removing "@":
33
95
177
93
Looks like I'll go back to the old habit of adding otherwise-unnecessary
"@"s in time-sensitive handlers, being as careful as I used to have to
be not to modify anything unless that's what I truly want.
Did copy-on-write get changed in v9, or is the scope of its effects just
more limited than I had understood it to be?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.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
