Hi Matt, 2009/12/15 mattschinkel <[email protected]> > > > I always have to use the compiler's -no-variable-reuse, my scripts > have a 3 second compile time with that compiler option. However, if I > do not use -no-variable-reuse the same script will take 5 to 10 min to > compile. Therefore, I am forced to use -no-variable-reuse. Every time > I make a new junk variable, I get mad because, I am taking up space > for something with no real purpose. > If I understand correct, this is a work-around for a bug and this bug will be resolved. It is a bad idea to adapt the libraries to a bug work-around.
> But also, procedures like yours (shown below) could be shortened > because there is no need to "var byte dummy", Defining it as a local variable makes it easier to read: dummy is that local variable (so: not used anywhere else) to store some temporary result. It also is a source of bugs: within a procedure using dummy, you might call an other procedure that also uses this same variable. Two reasons why Steve McDonald (author of Code Complete) will advise against this. And although it shortens the source code (which is not a good this IMHO, see above), it will generally not reduce target code. It will however increase ram usage, because global variables cannot be reused. So I strongly advice against this. Joep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
