General information
Category:
Coding, syntax & commands
Russell,
>I'm not sure I get your point. I don't know if you're poking fun at the minor, insignificant changes that some people want to apply to example code, or if you're making a serious statement. Ultimately, the small changes you made are inconsequential. IMHO, some of them make the routine less obvious. But, as I said, I can't determine if you're serious or not.
this thread was started with quite an emphasis on speedy execution. Your approach via afields() is in best cases one of, if not *the* slowest solutions, and your implementation is evidently not the speediest one. So I rearranged the code a bit to get at least a speedier implementation of the afields()-approach.
What I was making fun of is the part in the commentary reserving copyrights (yes, I guess it was just copied from your sources at work) - similar functions were in the public before 2001 (probably even in the last century<g>) and defining a line between "forbidden copy" and "own implementation" would be hard to argue in view of prior art.
On "inconsequential": as a large part of the thread was on speed, I view speed-ups
twice as large than the baseline for best possible implementation
or
about the same as the overhead of the function(field())-approach
to be not inconsequential. But also, I would not use ANY afields-approach, as there are non-extreme settings were it is not only near/on the bottom speed wise, but also worse than the best implementation by a factor greater than 100.
Such a factor size I do not consider insignificant. This *can* slow down applications if used a couple of hundred times in a FWK-based approach on machines not top of the line. YMMV.
regards
thomas
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only