On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Peter M. Brigham <pmb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Running the comparison on my old MacBook Core 2 Duo within a high-n repeat > loop I get > > script 1: 2.177881 seconds > script 2: 1.962642 seconds > > so the intermediate shallow array saves some time, presumably increasingly > more with deeper arrays.
Now *that* fascinates me . . . I was wondering if the copy to another variable was faster than referencing the array a second time (which might not even be necessary). But you've found that actually *copying* part of the array is faster than a second reference . . . My arrays are only two deep, but the first index can get fairly large (on the one I was working on, I think it's about 500, likely to get to 600 or 700 by the time I'm done. In C or Fortran, I believe that the second reference would be optimized away, but . . . > OTOH, long variable names do nothing to shave clock cycles at runtime, I > think that >whatever the variable names it gets compiled to the same code. Now if I could only convince my fingers of this . . . :) Thanks -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
