Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Jim Bufalini wrote: JB put the number of [whatever] into j -- See note: repeat with i = j down to 1 If you put the first line in the loop as in "i = the number of [whatever] down to 1" the number of would be evaluated each time, I believe, and be slower. No, they wouldn't be - they're calculated once only. From the docs: As with the "for number times" form described above, the startValue and endValue are evaluated when the loop is first entered, and are not re-evaluated as a result of any actions performed in the statementList. And although it doesn't say it there, the same is also true for the "step" value if used. -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 24/06/2005 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Alex, thanks. That's good to know. -Jim -Original Message- From: Alex Tweedly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 12:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; How to use Revolution Subject: Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Jim Bufalini wrote: >JB > >put the number of [whatever] into j -- See note: >repeat with i = j down to 1 > >If you put the first line in the loop as in "i = the number of [whatever] >down to 1" the number of would be evaluated each time, I believe, and be >slower. > > No, they wouldn't be - they're calculated once only. From the docs: > > As with the "for number times" form described above, the startValue > and endValue are evaluated when the loop is first entered, and are not > re-evaluated as a result of any actions performed in the statementList. > And although it doesn't say it there, the same is also true for the "step" value if used. -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 24/06/2005 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Jim, according to some tests I did, "the number of..." is evaluated only once, and both versions have the same execution time. JB > JB > > put the number of [whatever] into j -- See note: > repeat with i = j down to 1 > > If you put the first line in the loop as in "i = the number of [whatever] > down to 1" the number of would be evaluated each time, I believe, and be > slower. > > Jim > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jbv > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:05 PM > To: How to use Revolution > Subject: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? > > Hi list, > > Is there a way to use > "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" > in reverse order, like in > "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? > > Thanks, > JB > ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Wouter, While some variation on the example I showed could be useful and faster than some other possible script variations, all the high level script commands to simulate low level operations are a speed killer relative to the speed of a native method. The repeat for each is truly awesome in its speed, and that is the speed that I would like to see in a more flexible primitive. Dennis On Jun 29, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Buster wrote: Hi Dennis, I'm just curious, but what is wrong with itemOffset? Greetings, Wouter Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Dennis Brown Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:59:41 -0700 What I would like to see is a way to access the next or previous "element" in a list independent of the repeat structure. We have something similar in the offset function --offset (findString,searchString,skipChars). The key is to have a concept for a pointer of sorts. The pointer in the offset function is the skipChars parameter. You could just about simulate this capability using the offset function (not tested): global gStringName,gStringNamePtr function nextItemStringName --don't want to pass the actual strings get offset(itemDel(), gStringName, gStringNamePtr) if it = 0 then --delimiter not found, must be end of string return char gStringNamePtr to -1 of gStringName --last item in the string, or empty else return char gStringNamePtr to gStringNamePtr +it-1 of gStringName --grab the next item put it+1 into gStringNamePtr --advance the pointer to after the delimiter end if end nextItemStringName Of course this way of doing it is not so general, a bit awkward, and the function calls would kill a lot of the potential speed. That is why a built-in function would be much better. Perhaps a syntax something like this: nextItem(stringName,charOffsetVar) The variable name specified for the charOffsetVar would have the pointer that gets modified. You could also make it a command something like: nextThing stringName with charOffsetVar by item Having sequential access methods like this would allow a much greater freedom to process one or more lists at the same time without suffering the usual speed penalties. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Hi Dennis, I'm just curious, but what is wrong with itemOffset? Greetings, Wouter Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Dennis Brown Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:59:41 -0700 What I would like to see is a way to access the next or previous "element" in a list independent of the repeat structure. We have something similar in the offset function --offset (findString,searchString,skipChars). The key is to have a concept for a pointer of sorts. The pointer in the offset function is the skipChars parameter. You could just about simulate this capability using the offset function (not tested): global gStringName,gStringNamePtr function nextItemStringName --don't want to pass the actual strings get offset(itemDel(), gStringName, gStringNamePtr) if it = 0 then --delimiter not found, must be end of string return char gStringNamePtr to -1 of gStringName --last item in the string, or empty else return char gStringNamePtr to gStringNamePtr +it-1 of gStringName -- grab the next item put it+1 into gStringNamePtr --advance the pointer to after the delimiter end if end nextItemStringName Of course this way of doing it is not so general, a bit awkward, and the function calls would kill a lot of the potential speed. That is why a built-in function would be much better. Perhaps a syntax something like this: nextItem(stringName,charOffsetVar) The variable name specified for the charOffsetVar would have the pointer that gets modified. You could also make it a command something like: nextThing stringName with charOffsetVar by item Having sequential access methods like this would allow a much greater freedom to process one or more lists at the same time without suffering the usual speed penalties. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:20 AM, jbv wrote: So here's a short reminder of what I had originally in mind : I only wanted to know if there was a way to benefit the speed of "repeat for each item i in myVar" (or "each line" or "each char"...) while reading items in reverse order... Looks like I took the word "element" too literally. Note that with sort, you can supply the sorting expression. This allows a wide range of sorting that you cannot get with the addition of a few keywords to repeat. Once you sort, then you can repeat with the fastest method. Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
What I would like to see is a way to access the next or previous "element" in a list independent of the repeat structure. We have something similar in the offset function --offset (findString,searchString,skipChars). The key is to have a concept for a pointer of sorts. The pointer in the offset function is the skipChars parameter. You could just about simulate this capability using the offset function (not tested): global gStringName,gStringNamePtr function nextItemStringName --don't want to pass the actual strings get offset(itemDel(), gStringName, gStringNamePtr) if it = 0 then --delimiter not found, must be end of string return char gStringNamePtr to -1 of gStringName --last item in the string, or empty else return char gStringNamePtr to gStringNamePtr +it-1 of gStringName --grab the next item put it+1 into gStringNamePtr --advance the pointer to after the delimiter end if end nextItemStringName Of course this way of doing it is not so general, a bit awkward, and the function calls would kill a lot of the potential speed. That is why a built-in function would be much better. Perhaps a syntax something like this: nextItem(stringName,charOffsetVar) The variable name specified for the charOffsetVar would have the pointer that gets modified. You could also make it a command something like: nextThing stringName with charOffsetVar by item Having sequential access methods like this would allow a much greater freedom to process one or more lists at the same time without suffering the usual speed penalties. Dennis On Jun 28, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Robert Brenstein wrote: When it comes to the 'each element' form, you are right that it is ambiguous at first glance, but would seem reasonable that sorting applies to the elements themselves since keys are not explicitly entering the picture. To get sorting on keys we would need to say repeat for each line tKey in the keys of myArray ascending Oops. My thinking went a bit astray. What you are talking about is more like repeat for each element foo of fooArray ascending by key of each Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
When it comes to the 'each element' form, you are right that it is ambiguous at first glance, but would seem reasonable that sorting applies to the elements themselves since keys are not explicitly entering the picture. To get sorting on keys we would need to say repeat for each line tKey in the keys of myArray ascending Oops. My thinking went a bit astray. What you are talking about is more like repeat for each element foo of fooArray ascending by key of each Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
On Jun 27, 2005, at 1:57 AM, Robert Brenstein wrote: repeat for each element x in y descending Now, is that with keys in descending order or elements in descending order? Dar Sorry, Dar, I used element in the loose sense and really meant chunk types: char, word, item, line. When it comes to the 'each element' form, you are right that it is ambiguous at first glance, but would seem reasonable that sorting applies to the elements themselves since keys are not explicitly entering the picture. To get sorting on keys we would need to say repeat for each line tKey in the keys of myArray ascending While we can do sorting explicitly with the sort command, I like the idea of having ascending and descending options as a new feature. It would combine two steps into a single engine process without a need to shuffle sorted results back and forth between engine and our program. Probably, to make it more complete, we would need to include numeric and international as options similarly as the sort itself has them. Now, this has, of course, drifted away from the original request. For that one, the syntax could be something like repeat for each foo in foofoo down No sorting involved, simple reversal of direction. Down is the closest of the existing keywords for me and already used in another form of repeat. And the other poster convinced me that even though it would be slower then forwards, it would still likely has enough speed benefit. Robert PS If this needs to be discussed further, may be we should move it to the improve-list. If anyone is filing it in bugzilla, let us know the number. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Hi guys, Thanks for spending so much time on my question. I sent a couple of posts during last week end, but they never went through... So here's a short reminder of what I had originally in mind : I only wanted to know if there was a way to benefit the speed of "repeat for each item i in myVar" (or "each line" or "each char"...) while reading items in reverse order... It looks that there isn't any built-in Transcript way of doing this, and a few members including me in my "disapeared" posts) suggested an improvement to the "repeat for each" statement in the for of : repeat for each item i in myVar backwards "backwards" being an optional parameter that would allow items to be read in reverse order. Cheers, JB > Wouter, > > I was under the impression that JB wanted to read a list sequentially > in reverse with the repeat for each to make it go faster, not reverse > the list. The split into an array is going to be faster at reading > the list in any order given that the repeat for each in reverse does > not exist. However, If we were given a more complete definition of > the problem, then perhaps the list could have generated a truly > optimized solution. For instance, I have had to create some > solutions for doing stuff in reverse to a list, that I managed to use > repeat for each loops that ran much faster than splitting. A genius > might be able to find all kinds of clever ways to use the existing > Transcript capabilities, but it would sure be nice if the language > allowed us mere mortals to tackle a problem in a straight forward way > without suffering orders of magnitude speed penalties. > > As a matter of course, figuring out how to use arrays is one of the > most straight forward ways to manage data. Arrays are not the > fastest nor the most space efficient, but they are usually a > reasonable compromise for most problems. > > I see that our scripting conferences has nothing for arrays in the > queue. This might be a good topic based on the number of times it is > used as a solution for newbie questions. > > Dennis > > On Jun 27, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Buster wrote: > > > Dennis, > > > > I thought the original question on this thread was: > > > > > > > > >> Hi list, > >> > >> Is there a way to use > >> "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" > >> in reverse order, like in > >> "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> JB > >> > > > > > > > which has changed to a feature request only later on in the thread. > > This feature request would be nice, but doesn't solve the problem > > right now. > > My answer and there you are right, I should have placed it as a > > reply to JB's original question and not to yours, was only to help > > out and show some peculiarities of the different solutions > > proposed, which were: > > > > The first method I mentioned (which you called a speed killer) is > > *not* fast at all when the number of lines exceed a certain level > > (depending on cpu). And the larger the number of chars in those > > lines the slower the performance. > > > > The second method on the contrary doesn't increase processing time > > in the same way the first method does and is by far the better > > solution for larger amounts of lines and chars. > > > > Greetings, > > Wouter > > > > On 28 Jun 2005, at 00:51, Wouter wrote: > > > > > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> > >>> From: Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Date: Mon 27 Jun 2005 23:58:13 GMT+02:00 > >>> To: How to use Revolution > >>> Subject: Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? > >>> Reply-To: How to use Revolution > >>> > >>> > >>> Wouter, > >>> > >>> I'm not sure what this example has to do with the question on the > >>> thread, but you first example is a speed killer. Putting things > >>> in front of a string causes the whole string to be shuffled to > >>> make room for the inserted string. It is a worst case situation > >>> --although I can always come up with a way to make it slower. It > >>> would be faster to use the slower repeat for i=number of lines in > >>> x down to 1 and then put the lines after like your second example. > >>> > >>> Splitting into an array is usually a good approach
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
On 6/27/05 8:22 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: I see that our scripting conferences has nothing for arrays in the queue. This might be a good topic based on the number of times it is used as a solution for newbie questions. Noted. ;) -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Wouter, I was under the impression that JB wanted to read a list sequentially in reverse with the repeat for each to make it go faster, not reverse the list. The split into an array is going to be faster at reading the list in any order given that the repeat for each in reverse does not exist. However, If we were given a more complete definition of the problem, then perhaps the list could have generated a truly optimized solution. For instance, I have had to create some solutions for doing stuff in reverse to a list, that I managed to use repeat for each loops that ran much faster than splitting. A genius might be able to find all kinds of clever ways to use the existing Transcript capabilities, but it would sure be nice if the language allowed us mere mortals to tackle a problem in a straight forward way without suffering orders of magnitude speed penalties. As a matter of course, figuring out how to use arrays is one of the most straight forward ways to manage data. Arrays are not the fastest nor the most space efficient, but they are usually a reasonable compromise for most problems. I see that our scripting conferences has nothing for arrays in the queue. This might be a good topic based on the number of times it is used as a solution for newbie questions. Dennis On Jun 27, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Buster wrote: Dennis, I thought the original question on this thread was: > Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB > which has changed to a feature request only later on in the thread. This feature request would be nice, but doesn't solve the problem right now. My answer and there you are right, I should have placed it as a reply to JB's original question and not to yours, was only to help out and show some peculiarities of the different solutions proposed, which were: The first method I mentioned (which you called a speed killer) is *not* fast at all when the number of lines exceed a certain level (depending on cpu). And the larger the number of chars in those lines the slower the performance. The second method on the contrary doesn't increase processing time in the same way the first method does and is by far the better solution for larger amounts of lines and chars. Greetings, Wouter On 28 Jun 2005, at 00:51, Wouter wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon 27 Jun 2005 23:58:13 GMT+02:00 To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Reply-To: How to use Revolution Wouter, I'm not sure what this example has to do with the question on the thread, but you first example is a speed killer. Putting things in front of a string causes the whole string to be shuffled to make room for the inserted string. It is a worst case situation --although I can always come up with a way to make it slower. It would be faster to use the slower repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 and then put the lines after like your second example. Splitting into an array is usually a good approach if the repeat for each construct will not work. However, it does take time to do the split. A repeat for each could process the whole string in less time than it takes to split it if a repeat for each fits the problem. In your second example, sorting the keys will also take time. You might be better off with just a simple repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 as the array index. You would have to try it on your array to see. Dennis On Jun 27, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Wouter wrote: Hi, Using the following to reverse the order of lines of a field containing 525605 chars in 14194 lines reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap repeat for each line i in x put i&cr before tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp takes > 60 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap split x by return get the keys of x sort it numeric descending repeat for each line i in it put x[i]&cr after tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp yields around 0.413007 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) (which is not too bad) The amount of chars and lines has a big influence on the speed in the first handler, while in the second handler it has not. Greetings, Wouter On 27 Jun 2005, at 14:40, Dennis Brown wrote: The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of loop
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Dennis, I thought the original question on this thread was: > Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB > which has changed to a feature request only later on in the thread. This feature request would be nice, but doesn't solve the problem right now. My answer and there you are right, I should have placed it as a reply to JB's original question and not to yours, was only to help out and show some peculiarities of the different solutions proposed, which were: The first method I mentioned (which you called a speed killer) is *not* fast at all when the number of lines exceed a certain level (depending on cpu). And the larger the number of chars in those lines the slower the performance. The second method on the contrary doesn't increase processing time in the same way the first method does and is by far the better solution for larger amounts of lines and chars. Greetings, Wouter On 28 Jun 2005, at 00:51, Wouter wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon 27 Jun 2005 23:58:13 GMT+02:00 To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Reply-To: How to use Revolution Wouter, I'm not sure what this example has to do with the question on the thread, but you first example is a speed killer. Putting things in front of a string causes the whole string to be shuffled to make room for the inserted string. It is a worst case situation -- although I can always come up with a way to make it slower. It would be faster to use the slower repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 and then put the lines after like your second example. Splitting into an array is usually a good approach if the repeat for each construct will not work. However, it does take time to do the split. A repeat for each could process the whole string in less time than it takes to split it if a repeat for each fits the problem. In your second example, sorting the keys will also take time. You might be better off with just a simple repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 as the array index. You would have to try it on your array to see. Dennis On Jun 27, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Wouter wrote: Hi, Using the following to reverse the order of lines of a field containing 525605 chars in 14194 lines reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap repeat for each line i in x put i&cr before tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp takes > 60 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap split x by return get the keys of x sort it numeric descending repeat for each line i in it put x[i]&cr after tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp yields around 0.413007 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) (which is not too bad) The amount of chars and lines has a big influence on the speed in the first handler, while in the second handler it has not. Greetings, Wouter On 27 Jun 2005, at 14:40, Dennis Brown wrote: The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of looping in a more flexible way (like parallel instantiation, starting at an arbitrary point, and reverse order), to make it possible to wander all over your data sequentially with the speed of the repeat for each method. However, it would be most useful with some improved string delimiter handling. Bugzilla # 2773 Having a reverse order repeat for each might be up to twice as slow as the forward version depending on how it is implemented, because it has to go backwards to the previous delimiter then forward to pick up the data, though it could pick up the data in reverse order on the way back. However, even twice as slow would be much faster than any other method. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Wouter, I'm not sure what this example has to do with the question on the thread, but you first example is a speed killer. Putting things in front of a string causes the whole string to be shuffled to make room for the inserted string. It is a worst case situation --although I can always come up with a way to make it slower. It would be faster to use the slower repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 and then put the lines after like your second example. Splitting into an array is usually a good approach if the repeat for each construct will not work. However, it does take time to do the split. A repeat for each could process the whole string in less time than it takes to split it if a repeat for each fits the problem. In your second example, sorting the keys will also take time. You might be better off with just a simple repeat for i=number of lines in x down to 1 as the array index. You would have to try it on your array to see. Dennis On Jun 27, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Wouter wrote: Hi, Using the following to reverse the order of lines of a field containing 525605 chars in 14194 lines reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap repeat for each line i in x put i&cr before tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp takes > 60 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap split x by return get the keys of x sort it numeric descending repeat for each line i in it put x[i]&cr after tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp yields around 0.413007 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) (which is not too bad) The amount of chars and lines has a big influence on the speed in the first handler, while in the second handler it has not. Greetings, Wouter On 27 Jun 2005, at 14:40, Dennis Brown wrote: The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of looping in a more flexible way (like parallel instantiation, starting at an arbitrary point, and reverse order), to make it possible to wander all over your data sequentially with the speed of the repeat for each method. However, it would be most useful with some improved string delimiter handling. Bugzilla # 2773 Having a reverse order repeat for each might be up to twice as slow as the forward version depending on how it is implemented, because it has to go backwards to the previous delimiter then forward to pick up the data, though it could pick up the data in reverse order on the way back. However, even twice as slow would be much faster than any other method. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Hi, Using the following to reverse the order of lines of a field containing 525605 chars in 14194 lines reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap repeat for each line i in x put i&cr before tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp takes > 60 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) reversing by: on mouseUp put fld 1 into x put the long seconds into zap split x by return get the keys of x sort it numeric descending repeat for each line i in it put x[i]&cr after tList end repeat put the long seconds - zap put tList into fld 1 end mouseUp yields around 0.413007 seconds on a slowbook (G4 400 mhz) (which is not too bad) The amount of chars and lines has a big influence on the speed in the first handler, while in the second handler it has not. Greetings, Wouter On 27 Jun 2005, at 14:40, Dennis Brown wrote: The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of looping in a more flexible way (like parallel instantiation, starting at an arbitrary point, and reverse order), to make it possible to wander all over your data sequentially with the speed of the repeat for each method. However, it would be most useful with some improved string delimiter handling. Bugzilla # 2773 Having a reverse order repeat for each might be up to twice as slow as the forward version depending on how it is implemented, because it has to go backwards to the previous delimiter then forward to pick up the data, though it could pick up the data in reverse order on the way back. However, even twice as slow would be much faster than any other method. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
On Jun 27, 2005, at 1:57 AM, Robert Brenstein wrote: repeat for each element x in y descending Now, is that with keys in descending order or elements in descending order? Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of looping in a more flexible way (like parallel instantiation, starting at an arbitrary point, and reverse order), to make it possible to wander all over your data sequentially with the speed of the repeat for each method. However, it would be most useful with some improved string delimiter handling. Bugzilla # 2773 Having a reverse order repeat for each might be up to twice as slow as the forward version depending on how it is implemented, because it has to go backwards to the previous delimiter then forward to pick up the data, though it could pick up the data in reverse order on the way back. However, even twice as slow would be much faster than any other method. Dennis On Jun 27, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Robert Brenstein wrote: It sounds like you're looking for a feature that doesn't yet exist (or at least I'm not aware of it). I could see having a property that defines the direction in which the 'repeat for each' structure does its looping, like this: set the repeatDirection to "descending" -- or "down", "reverse", ??? repeat for each element x in y -- actions end repeat That would be a nice feature indeed. No harm in requesting it! Phil Davis I would prefer repeat for each element x in y descending but I doubt whether this would have the performance anywhere close to ascending 'for each' so it is probably pointless to have it. As far as I know, the speed of 'repeat for each' comes from processing elements sequentially and thus without having to recalculate the list pointer position. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
It sounds like you're looking for a feature that doesn't yet exist (or at least I'm not aware of it). I could see having a property that defines the direction in which the 'repeat for each' structure does its looping, like this: set the repeatDirection to "descending" -- or "down", "reverse", ??? repeat for each element x in y -- actions end repeat That would be a nice feature indeed. No harm in requesting it! Phil Davis I would prefer repeat for each element x in y descending but I doubt whether this would have the performance anywhere close to ascending 'for each' so it is probably pointless to have it. As far as I know, the speed of 'repeat for each' comes from processing elements sequentially and thus without having to recalculate the list pointer position. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
You can also do repeat with i = (the num of items in myVar) down to 1 -- do something end repeat Tom On Jun 26, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Thomas McCarthy wrote: I'm pretty sure you can do it--because I do it (and I'm not a guru) Here's what I do: put the num of items in myVariable into tnum --or lines, or words,or.. repeat with i = tnum down to 1 do something with item i of myVariable --drink coffee end repeat ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution Thomas J. McGrath III SCS 1000 Killarney Dr. Pittsburgh, PA 15234 412-885-8541 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
I'm pretty sure you can do it--because I do it (and I'm not a guru) Here's what I do: put the num of items in myVariable into tnum --or lines, or words,or.. repeat with i = tnum down to 1 do something with item i of myVariable --drink coffee end repeat ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
JB, The repeat for each only goes in forward sequential order starting at the beginning, except for arrays where the order is indeterminate. I have requested a sequential access enhancement to allow for constructing this type of looping in a more flexible way (like parallel instantiation, starting at an arbitrary point, and reverse order), to make it possible to wander all over your data sequentially with the speed of the repeat for each method. However, it would be most useful with some improved string delimiter handling. Bugzilla # 2773 Dennis On Jun 25, 2005, at 5:04 AM, jbv wrote: Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
On Jun 25, 2005, at 3:04 AM, jbv wrote: Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? I don't think there is an order in 'repeat for each element'. I think the elements are processed in some seemingly arbitrary order. In any case... You can get the keys of the array and sort them in the order you want and then loop through the keys with 'repeat for each line'. Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
How about put the keys of myArray into kList repeat for each line L in kList put cr & L before newKlist end repeat delete char 1 of newKlist repeat for each line L in newKlist --doStuff end repeat It's two loops, admittedly, but unless it's a very big array, it'd be really quick. You could also put the first loop into a separate function if you need to do this in many different places in your code. Cheers, Mark Smith On 25 Jun 2005, at 18:57, Phil Davis wrote: It sounds like you're looking for a feature that doesn't yet exist (or at least I'm not aware of it). I could see having a property that defines the direction in which the 'repeat for each' structure does its looping, like this: set the repeatDirection to "descending" -- or "down", "reverse", ??? repeat for each element x in y -- actions end repeat That would be a nice feature indeed. No harm in requesting it! Phil Davis jbv wrote: Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
It sounds like you're looking for a feature that doesn't yet exist (or at least I'm not aware of it). I could see having a property that defines the direction in which the 'repeat for each' structure does its looping, like this: set the repeatDirection to "descending" -- or "down", "reverse", ??? repeat for each element x in y -- actions end repeat That would be a nice feature indeed. No harm in requesting it! Phil Davis jbv wrote: Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
JB put the number of [whatever] into j -- See note: repeat with i = j down to 1 If you put the first line in the loop as in "i = the number of [whatever] down to 1" the number of would be evaluated each time, I believe, and be slower. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jbv Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:05 PM To: How to use Revolution Subject: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: "repeat for each" in reverse order ?
sort your items to list backwards first ;) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jbv > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:05 > To: How to use Revolution > Subject: "repeat for each" in reverse order ? > > Hi list, > > Is there a way to use > "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" > in reverse order, like in > "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? > > Thanks, > JB > > ___ > use-revolution mailing list > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage > your subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
"repeat for each" in reverse order ?
Hi list, Is there a way to use "repeat for each element thisIndexTerm in listOfTerms" in reverse order, like in "repeat with i=number of items of myVar down to 1" ? Thanks, JB ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
