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

[Alex Tweedly]

On 17/02/2014 21:50, Peter Haworth wrote:
> Have to admit I'm the same.  If it's more convenient codingwise to to
> repeat with x=1 to whatever and I know for sure there won;t be many
> iterations to go through, the speed difference is unnoticeable to the user.
>
> I'm also curious about another aspect of this.  Is it universally true that
> "repeat with" is always slower than "repeat for" or only when the loop is
> addressing LC chunks of one sort or another?
>
>
It's basically only when addressing chunks such as line, item or word 
(when the engine needs to scan from the stat of the data to find the 
specified chunk), and so the time grows order N**2 (where N is a 
combination of the number of items/lines/words and the number of 
chars/bytes it has to scan over -)

Addressing bytes is constant in time, so addressing each byte by 
indexing grows linearly.

Addressing chars has been the same as bytes - but full Unicode may 
affect that somehow.


And, btw (to my continuing astonishment), addressing backwards from the 
end of the data is even slower

if we have K lines of data, then getting "line K" takes just over half 
as long as getting "line -1" (see below).
Why ?

-- Alex.

    put "x" into line K of tdata
    replace CR with "xxx" & CR in tData
    put the millisecs into t1
    repeat K times
       get line 1 of tData
    end repeat
    put the millisecs - t1 & CR after msg

    put the millisecs into t1
    repeat K times
       get line K of tData
    end repeat

    put the millisecs - t1 & CR after msg

    put the millisecs into t1
    repeat K times
       get line -1 of tData
    end repeat
    put the millisecs - t1 & CR after msg

gives
3
523
934