I wrote mine as I did primarily because, due to a subtle syntax error, I thought that it was impossible to use "whose category contains". I was mistaken, which is why I said later to ignore my script.
On or near 2/23/04 5:40 PM, Paul Berkowitz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] observed: > On 2/23/04 3:55 PM, "Joshua Yeidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So Allen�s solution is 17 lines, and Paul�s is 3. Just a matter of style, or >> something more profound? > > Mine used a 'whose' clause, which is not only shorter to write but is much > quicker to execute because it harnesses the power of the application > (Entourage) to do the filtering. There are some circumstances where 'whose' > clauses can't be used, and then you'd need a repeat loop, with AppleScript > iterating through a list, one item at a time. Allen uses two nested repeat > loops, which is going to be slower. (Back in Classic, using too many 'whose' > filters at once - this script uses three - could backfire by exhausting > Entourage's memory - then you'd just get an error. I've never seen that > happen yet in OS X, not even on my previous computer, and older G3.) > > Barry's script uses a 'whose' clause to generate the list of messages, but > then moves them one by one. That will still be slower than mine, but by not > so much. Allen's, which generates the list by repeat loops, then tries to > move the whole list at once, would make up some of the time if only > Entourage could move a pre-existing AppleScript list of messages. But > Entourage X unfortunately can't do that, so don't try it at home. I'd better > not say more at this point...;-) Yeah, sorry about that... -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
