I have attached version two which is modeled after your advice, much smaller
and more elegant.

The question is, is it faster? I will have to test that tomorrow.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>wrote:

> Hi Henrik,
> > The code is quite ugly with a lot of catch throw statements due to the
> fact
> > that I want things to terminate right away if the query fails.
> I haven't investigated it too deeply yet, but perhaps these catch/throw
> constructs can be avoided: 'for' can be terminated at any time using the
> 'T' or 'NIL' clauses (same as in 'loop' and 'do').
> Also, I'm not sure if looping over the data with 'for' is necessary at
> all. Direcly using functions with "built-in looping", like 'member' and
> 'find', and also 'match', is probably faster. The whole issue looks to
> me as a typical application of nested 'match' calls (i.e. matching on
> partial expressions bound to pattern variables by previous matches).
> Just 2 cent at the moment ;-)
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Attachment: qlst.l
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to