You are addressing issues that have always been of concern to enterprise developers versus individual PC developers. Yes, Yes, Yes, there are individual PC developers that care about efficiencies. I do not want to go there. In an enterprise implementation a 1000 NEWs versus 1 NEW and a 1000 KILLs
--- Steven McPhelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are addressing issues that have always been of concern to
enterprise
developers versus individual PC developers.
I'm not sure I agree, but perhaps I just misunderstand your point. It
is true that essentially all PCs run complex operating
I will give an example of enterprise versus local programmers that I have experienced in over 20 years of hiring programmers. A programmer who has only programmed in the situation where the application will run on a standalone single-user PC may not think twice about locking a record or a file.
Well said, Steve;
Different situations require different solutions. Finesse comes with
applying the best solution for the situation which inconveniences the
fewest people. There was a site in Daito, Japan which had a warehouse
and an facility where locks were being badly applied. They
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said, Steve;
Different situations require different solutions. Finesse comes
with
applying the best solution for the situation which inconveniences the
fewest people. There was a site in Daito, Japan which had a
warehouse
and an facility where locks
--- Steven McPhelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will give an example of enterprise versus local programmers that I
have
experienced in over 20 years of hiring programmers. A programmer who
has
only programmed in the situation where the application will run on a
standalone single-user PC may
I have a question about the NEW and KILL command.
I asked this question long ago, but want to revisit it.
Image this code:
new i,Var
for i=1:1:10 do
. kill Var
. set Var=i
. write Var,!
My understanding of how variables are stored in M is to put them into
a big symbol table. So I assume that
On Feb 11, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
Image this code:
new i,Var
for i=1:1:10 do
. kill Var
. set Var=i
. write Var,!
Try this:
S X=1
D
.N X
.K X
W X
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nothing is as powerful than an idea
whose time has come.
-- Victor
Greg,
Are you showing me a better way of coding, or answering my question?
I'm not following you here. The result of the code should be 1
Kevin
On 2/11/06, Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 11, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
Image this code:
new i,Var
On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
Image this code:
new i,Var
for i=1:1:10 do
. kill Var
. set Var=i
. write Var,!
What do you accomplish with new i,Var in this code?
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can
OK. Bad example. Here is a closer one to what I am working on.
...
new Array,done
set done=0
for do quit:done
. kill Array
. if $$UpdateInfo(.Array)=1 do SOMETHING
. (more logic here)
. set done=(some logic)
So here we have Array NEW'ed outside the loop. Array is used
primarily as an OUT
On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
OK. Bad example.
Not really.
Here is a closer one to what I am working on.
...
new Array,done
set done=0
for do quit:done
. kill Array
. if $$UpdateInfo(.Array)=1 do SOMETHING
. (more logic here)
. set done=(some logic)
When you
: [Hardhats-members] KILL'ing and NEW'ing -- what's really
happening?
OK. Bad example. Here is a closer one to what I am working on.
...
new Array,done
set done=0
for do quit:done
. kill Array
. if $$UpdateInfo(.Array)=1 do SOMETHING
. (more logic here)
. set done=(some logic)
So here we have Array
...
When you NEW a variable, you basically create a fresh variable with
the same name, that shadows the old value until the DO block or
extrinsic call exits and the variable name is again associated with
the old storage location. Think about it this way: your environment
consists of a stack
On 2/11/06, Gary Monger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NEW Array,done; Array and done pushed on the stack
SET done=0;
FOR DO Q:done ; DO pushes a new frame on the stack
. ; If NEW variable here, value will pop with DO frame
. KILL Array ;
. I $$Up(.Array) D
Toppenberg
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:02 AM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] KILL'ing and NEW'ing -- what's really
happening?
...
When you NEW a variable, you basically create a fresh variable with
the same name, that shadows the old value until the DO
: Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:04 AM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] KILL'ing and NEW'ing -- what's really
happening?
On 2/11/06, Gary Monger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NEW Array,done; Array and done pushed on the stack
SET done=0;
FOR DO
On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
So in this code
for i=1:1:1000 do
. new VAR
. set VAR=i
Then the frame containing VAR is popped/discarded at the end of each
loop, because the do block has concluded, right? We don't get 1000
pushes onto the stack, right?
Thanks for you
@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] KILL'ing and NEW'ing -- what's really
happening?
The DO inside the loop will create 1000 pushes and 1000 pops.
The NEW will push VAR 1000 times.
Its usually better to NEW outside the loop, and use SET
19 matches
Mail list logo
