Bob wrote:
> Do you know if
>
> for (i=n; --i >= 0;)
> if (bs.get(i)) {
> ....
> }
> }
>
> is significantly different in terms of efficiency from:
>
> for (i=bs.cardinality(); --i >= 0) {
> int i = bs.nextSetBit()
>
> }
The latter is better, but the performance difference is completely
insignificant relative to the cost of rendering.
HOWEVER ... you may NOT use the latter. The BitSet.cardinality() and
BitSet.nextSetBit() methods do not exist in the 1.1 JVM and therefore will
not run on Internet Explorer with the MSFT JVM.
I must tell you that I am somewhat nervous ... because I have not been
observing what kinds of things you have introduced and the cost/pain of
debugging this kind of thing is quite high.
> ? I did replace some of the former with the latter because it seemed
> me just going through the actually set bits would probably be faster.
> That's something I changed.
You need to roll this back.
I said that I would support the 1.1 JVM through the end of 2006.
Miguel
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Jmol-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
