erik hansen wrote: > put tot(it,l) into tot > shorter > put (the number of lines in it) into tot > clearer > > only thing is, nobody else does this. > maybe clearer is better than shorter?
Depends. In this case, the clearer method takes less time to execute too, so it's probably better. MC has to get the number of lines (or items, or whatever) no matter which method you use, but it takes extra time to load up the custom function's parameters, send it, and get the results back. So by moving a single native MC statement to a custom function, execution time is increased. Leaving the function inside the handler is marginally faster. (MC is so fast in general though that the difference in this case would be miniscule.) In other cases, calling out to a function might be better, especially if the function is long or complex, or if it does something that several different handlers need to use. A custom function call makes scripts easier to read in that case. There's always a balancing act between readability and functionality though, and everyone has their own preferences. There is a difference between MC and HC when calling native functions. In HC, functions written with "the" are sent directly to HyperCard, while functions that use parentheses traverse the message hierarchy. That means it matters which way you write them; if you write them with parentheses, they take longer but they can be trapped later on in a handler farther up the hierarchy (not a great scripting technique, but it can be done.) On the other hand, MC sends all its native commands and functions directly to the engine; that's why you can't intercept and trap any MC keywords. So in MetaCard, it doesn't matter whether you write "the length of thisWord" or "length(thisWord"), they are equivalent. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
