Can you post your code? I didn't see that. Here's mine for the two tests I
did, and a simple put after looks 50% faster (90mb vs. 60mb):
Variable by reference:
60000000
on mouseUp
put 10 + the long seconds into T
repeat
repeat 100000
append "xxxxxxxxxx", R
end repeat
if the long seconds > T then exit repeat
end repeat
put length(R) & cr & cr & the script of me
end mouseUp
command append pNew, @pString
put pNew after pString
end append
Simple put after:
90000000
on mouseUp
put 10 + the long seconds into T
repeat
repeat 100000
put "xxxxxxxxxx" after R
end repeat
if the long seconds > T then exit repeat
end repeat
put length(R) & cr & cr & the script of me
end mouseUp
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Mark Wieder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Geoff-
>
> Friday, September 13, 2013, 11:01:56 PM, you wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure put after does not make a copy. It does have to find the
> > end of the string in order to append to it. I did timings, I'll post the
> > results in a minute...
>
> Nonetheless, the solution I posted using a variable by reference is
> two orders of magnitude faster by my experiments.
>
> --
> -Mark Wieder
> [email protected]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [email protected]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
