OpenEuphoria

RE: Sequence Multiplication

• Posted by Rod Jackson <rodjackson_x at hotmail.com> Mar 15, 2002
• 381 views

Interesting. I don't see how it could be any faster than the
simple multiplication. You're setting up a temp variable for
a loop, doing 3 array subscripts per element, and accessing
length (seq_a). Not to mention just the extra statements for
the interpreter to read and interpret....

But even if it was the same speed (or marginally faster),
would it really be worth the increase in code complexity?

Rod Jackson


C. K. Lester wrote:
> Where length(seq_a) = length(seq_b), instead of
> 
>     seq_x = seq_a * seq_b
> 
> should I use
> 
>     for t=1 to length(seq_a) do
>         seq_x[t] = seq_a[t] * seq_b[t]
>     end for
> 
> I would try it out but it's late and I'm going to bed. Plus, someone may 
> 
> have some additional insights they'd like to share.
> 
> Thanks (and goodnight),
> ck