Most Effecient way to repeat a handler/function - Found word(s) list error in the Text body

[Bob Sneidar]

I did not think “snarky” when I read your post. Whenever discussing technical things, it probably always sounds snarky. I’ve second guessed some of my own posts for that reason, But no fear, I take everything I read on this list from long time posters as what it is: Expert opinions from professionals. 

Bob


On Feb 13, 2014, at 22:53 , J. Landman Gay <jacque at hyperactivesw.com> wrote:

> Oops. That reads way snarkier than it sounded in my head. Sorry.
> 
> On 2/13/14, 10:12 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>> On 2/13/14, 8:53 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>>> Aye, but the question was which form of repeat was more efficient.
>> 
>> I thought you said that any repeat loop was equal to another, and just
>> pointed out that an empty loop (your original test) didn't mean much
>> until you put some code in it.
>> 
>> It's pretty well established that the "for each" form is a magnitude
>> faster than the counting form. I was just responding to this:
>> 
>>> I ran a 100,000 count
>>> loop with nothing in the repeat loop to do and it took 1 tick.
>> 
>> It was a trivial point: that an empty repeat loop of any form is going
>> to be quick; it's the code inside that matters. In your examples, the
>> code inside happens to be another repeat loop, but that's a different
>> thing.
>> 
>> I suspect we're talking about the same thing and we don't know it. ;)
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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