Well, I'd imagine that it's more efficient to pass large chunks of
data to other handlers by reference, but I don't see how that would
apply to this example - even if you pass the additional line and the
output data to a separate function, the new line still has to be
added to the output data, however they were passed. Perhaps I'm
missing the point, though?
Best,
Mark
On 15 Jul 2007, at 22:27, Stephen Barncard wrote:
what about "pass by reference" being faster?
Stephen, for what it's worth, my own experience (when I was doing
my SHA1 function) is that it's marginally quicker to use literals
than it is to use constants. I do mean marginally, though it was
enough to shave a few more milliseconds off the execution time of
the SHA1 function...
Best,
Mark
--
stephen barncard
s a n f r a n c i s c o
- - - - - - - - - - - -
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
