comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: Saved Object Question

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Saved Object Question

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Saved Object Question [message #67621]

Thu, 20 August 2009 15:26

penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018

Senior Member
Administrator

On Aug 20, 7:03 pm, David Fanning <n...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I thought of that, too. I decided against
> it because if you have a large path, you would have
> to search the whole damn thing multiple times while
> you were looking for superclasses. I didn't actually
> test it, but it "felt" slow to me.

It feels slow to me, too. Also, not much point in keep testing to
avoid doing things when catch can do both the test and the intended
operation, and thus might look nicer (if made GOTO-less).

Since call_procedure will do the same search that file_which would,
using file_which first would mean search twice in the cases the file
is found. But no disk searches would be done using the help output,
just a quick string array search.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: Saved Object Question By: penteado on Thu, 20 August 2009 15:26
		Re: Saved Object Question By: David Fanning on Thu, 20 August 2009 15:03
		Re: Saved Object Question By: penteado on Thu, 20 August 2009 14:25
		Re: Saved Object Question By: David Fanning on Thu, 20 August 2009 13:52
		Re: Saved Object Question By: penteado on Wed, 19 August 2009 20:27
		Re: Saved Object Question By: David Fanning on Thu, 20 August 2009 15:57

Previous Topic:	Re: is-it possible to extract multiple profiles on multiple images from shape files
Next Topic:	Yet another build script

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 07:56:09 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08442 seconds