>I also use the current array capabilities and do not want to lose >anything we have. In fact I am in favor of expanding them further. >What I propose is a different array organization that is optimized >for execution speed and space efficiency at the cost of a more >restricted organizational flexibility. The restrictions would only >occur if you wanted to make this tradeoff for a particular array. > And if we had an array OBJECT, we could subclass it to get what we > really want.
I reacted on the fact you proposed a c/c++ solution.... >This is an interesting concept. Would an array object have a >spreadsheet as its visual representation? When I pointed to SQL, I was hinting to the same idea. But I am only a hobbyist programmer, I can only stir a debate and let others express things better than I can ;-). Marielle Dennis I would be interested to know if in you timing test, you also tried using a variable rather than an array. repeat for x in (trows) repeat for y in (tcolumns) do something on (variable & "_" & x & "_" & y). end repeat end repeat + what if you store all rows in one array rowdata[1] and all columns in another one columndata[1]. You then reduce the dimensionality and perhaps access time. Marielle _______________________________________________ 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