repeating a string

[Alex Tweedly]

Cubist at aol.com wrote:

>
>   What would this function do if handed a non-integer, or completely 
>non-numeric, value for "reps"?
>
a. Give an error when executed
b. Truncate it to the next lower integer value

>Also, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the notion of 
>uninitialized variables.
>
There is no such thing in Rev. It is defined (and documented) that 
variable which have no specified initial value are created as empty.

>And I suspect that "put before" might actually be a 
>bit faster than "put after", albeit the actual time difference isn't likely to 
>be significant in *most* cases.
>
Sorry, not correct.  put after is much, much faster.

For a medium size case (50,000 copies of a 4 character string),
put before     2405 msec
put after            12 msec

Yep - the new version is 200 times slower than put after. It gets worse 
if the number of copies gets larger.

-- 
Alex Tweedly       http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005