On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:30:23PM +0100, The Holy ettlz wrote: > > > > Style A: > > > > > > > > if can_use_fast_path: > > > > return "fast path result" > > > > # do slow stuff > > > > return "slow path result" > > > > > > > > > > > > Style B: > > > > > > > > result = "fast path result" > > > > if !can_use_fast_path: > > > > # do slow stuff > > > > result = "slow path result" > > > > return result > > > > > > How expensive is evaluating can_use_fast_path? > > > > Does it matter? It's got to be evaluated in either route. Assume > > that it's cheap compared to the cost of the slow path (otherwise it's > > not worth doing the test, of course...) > > Hmm. I'd choose Style A since with Style B there's a chance I'd have to > discard one result and evaluate three things. Unless there's some > parallel funny-stuff... what's the probability of can_use_fast_path?
*shrug* Who knows? This is entirely hypothetical. The question came to mind while I was looking at some code someone else had written, in Style B, where I usually use Style A. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, --- debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
