Reverse a list
pete at lcsql.com
Tue Feb 17 01:03:41 CET 2015
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.niggemann at 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
> View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode