[REBOL] Re: for bug?
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 17-Jun-2002 11:36
On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 10:26 AM, Romano Paolo Tenca wrote:
> Joel, i do not understand your for code, is missing something?
> if op end start [
> until [
> start: (old: start) + bump
What's missing is the working part of the loop body. I stripped the loop
down to just the "counter" management to see what would happen to the
overhead timing in going to post-test.
I think that a single range test wrapped around the post-test loop is
faster than putting another upper-limit test inside a pre-test loop.