Reverse a list

Mike Kerner MikeKerner at roadrunner.com
Sun Feb 15 03:28:31 CET 2015


Richard,

I just read the dictionary entry (again), and I would say that it is not at
all clear that there would appear to be an ENORMOUS difference.  For
starters, you have to read waaaaaaaay down to find the mention, it isn't
really called out with a NOTE or anything else to draw one's attention to
it, and it is definitely understated.  Even mentioning "order of magnitude"
would be better (although it would appear to be an understatement).  I
literally had no idea until I ran into this, by accident, and was
exchanging notes with Peter.  The difference is staggering, and it really
should be made much more obvious.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Peter Haworth <pete at lcsql.com> wrote:

> Typo, should be ":memory:".
>
> On Sat Feb 14 2015 at 2:01:45 PM Mike Kerner <MikeKerner at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Pete, is that a typo, or did you mean to have a semicolon instead of a
> > colon in front of "memory"?  Does ";memory:" work, too, or just
> ":memory:"?
> >
> > AND HOLY CRAP, yes, Pete, you're right, you were doing 100k records,
> where
> > the other example was only doing 10k.  So doing 100k records with REPEAT
> > WITH took
> > wait for it
> > wait for it
> > Believe me, I was waiting, and waiting, and wating for it
> > FIFTY EIGHT MINUTES AND THIRTEEN SECONDS.
> >
> > REPEAT FOR is .129 seconds, and REPEAT WITH is TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND
> TIMES
> > SLOWER (for this operation)??!?!?!?!?!???
> >
> > Hey, Pete, "That's a common technique"...WHAT?  If it's so common, and
> all
> > of this is common knowledge, then how come it isn't documented, anywhere,
> > and how come this is the first time I remember EVER hearing about this
> > difference?  What else don't I know about???  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.  You would
> > think that Edinburgh would think about tweaking an algorithm, since
> REPEAT
> > WITH seems to be a special case of REPEAT FOR, and you can generate the
> > REPEAT WITH behavior by wrapping the REPEAT FOR...
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Bob Sneidar <
> bobsneidar at iotecdigital.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Oh thanks. That would have screwed me up if I had tried to use
> “memory”.
> > >
> > > Bob S
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2015, at 15:34 , Peter Haworth <pete at lcsql.com<mailto:
> > > pete at lcsql.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > We both used in memory databases.  The filename is ";memory:"
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > use-livecode mailing list
> > > use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > > subscription preferences:
> > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
> > On the second day, God created the oceans.
> > On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
> >    and did a little diving.
> > And God said, "This is good."
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode at 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 at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."


More information about the use-livecode mailing list