Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[REBOL] Re: for bug?

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 17-Jun-2002 8:49

Hi, again, Romano and list, Joel Neely wrote:
> Romano Paolo Tenca wrote: > > > > > > until [ > > ... > > i >= 255 > > ] > > > > The problem with post-condition tests is their inability to > "do nothing gracefully". In the case > > >> for i 3 2 1 [print i] > == none > > which can be understood as > > print each number i in the range [3 <= i <= 2] stepping by 1 > > nothing should print, because the range is empty. >
...
> IMHO any effort to redefine the behavior of FOR should address > the following issues: >
...
> - minimizing overhead (maximizing performance) >
It is interesting that replacing while [op end start] [ start: start + bump ] with if op end start [ until [ start: (old: start) + bump ] ] would actually appear to improve performance, as well as addressing Romano's issue with #"^(ff)" as an upper loop bound. -jn-