(a) is certainly much slower if collection is a LinkedList
- Bert -
Am 23.08.2006 um 22:20 schrieb stéphane ducasse:
but is a not the fastest one?
because you nearly only call primitives?
I did not check.
Cedric did you benchmark a and c.
even if large dictionaries degenerate in Squeak.
(a) ---- à la C
(1 to: collection size) do: [:index |
html render: 'Victime ', index
printString.
html render:
collection at: index]
(b) --- indexOf
collection do: [:victim |
html render: 'Victime ', (collection indexOf: victim)
printString.
html render: victim]
(c) ---- keysAndValuesDo:
collection keysAndValuesDo: [:index :victim |
html render: index printString.
html render: member]
(d) ---- using a local var
| index |
index := 0.
collection do: [:victim | index := index + 1.
html render: 'Victime ', index
printString.
html render: victim]
What solution would you suggest ?
I think we forget (a) and (d)
I like (c) but maybe (b) is more readable ?
Maybe there is another way ?
(c), though I like #withIndexDo: better since it mimics the
#with:do: pattern.
- Bert -
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
