Yes. This thread has been about choosing between for loops, and speed, and readability have been discussed. Enumeration order is my primary deciding factor (when the option is available, which is not all that often)
Tracy ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Smith Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: speed of the "for each" looping So don't use for..in or for each... in if you care about the enumeration order. It could very possibly change in future versions of the Flash Player. Gordon Smith Adobe Flex SDK From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Harui Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: speed of the "for each" looping No enumeration order of for..in is not guaranteed From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tracy Spratt Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: speed of the "for each" looping Is the enumeration order guaranteed to be the same for for-in and for each as an indexed loop? Tracy ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cato Paus Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: speed of the "for each" looping if you need to get the i you can use the getItemIndex::ArrayCollection --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Amy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Josh McDonald" <dznuts@> wrote: > > > > *nods* > > > > I find that it's often much easier to read when you use for..in and > for > > each..in rather than regular for. And since you need to have a "var > current > > = list[i]" or similar as the first line, If you only need an index > to > > display, or it's 1-based as opposed to 0-based, using a "for > [each]..in" and > > having the first inner line be "++idx" will be easier to read than > a bunch > > of statements within your loop that look like: > > > > var current = foo[i+1] > > > > or > > > > msg = "you're at item #" + (i + 1) > > The thing is, I nearly always find I need that i for something else > other than just iterating, so even when I start out with a for each > loop, about 80% of the time I wind up switching back so I have that i > to get hold of. Since I know that this is quite likely to happen, I > just "cut to the chase" and use the indexed loop. > > -Amy >
