1. RE: append() tip
I'd like to hear Rob reply on this.
x = append(x,y) <-- does eu type check x for a sequence in both
instances?
x &= y <-- only once?
Besides preference, should there be any difference between the two
forms?
Chris
dm31 at uow.edu.au wrote:
> |I find three issues to consider:
> |1) Both append(a, b) and prepend(a, b) need that 'a' be a sequence,
> not an
> |atom.
> |2) At least for the cases presented in this message, both append()
> and
> |prepend() are faster.
> |3) It is by no means clear why append() and prepend() should be more
> |difficult to understand and apply than their counterparts, as it
> seems to be
> |implied in this thread.
> |I am not taking side for someone in this controversy, only stating
> what I
> |think are facts.
>
> 1) Fair enough, but if you program correctly, it shouldn't be a
> problem.
>
> 2) I didn't test for these cases, but used a larger data set.
> Maybe they where optimised more in 2.3, because I did the times ages
> ago...
>
> 3)Speaking for myself only, I don't find it any harder to understand,
> I just thought it was faster... Guess I better check the times again
> in 2.3
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
>
>
2. RE: append() tip
- Posted by a.tammer at hetnet.nl
May 31, 2002
Could we end this thread, by stating that if a were an atom,=
integer or for what that would ever be in Euphoria a COCONUT,
from the moment I put [a], I SEQENCISED it, IE I for the purpose=
of using it in Euphoria, though a WILL STAY an atom,
{COCONUT} or {A} IS A SEQUENCE.
Thanks for all input , and exchanged opinions on this item guys
antoine
