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

[REBOL] Re: Clunky-looking code

From: sanghabum:aol at: 3-Apr-2001 19:00

Thanks Renaud, <Renaud> MultiplyBlocks: func [ Block1 Block2 /local sum ][ sum: 0 repeat i min length? Block1 length? Block2 [ sum: sum + (Block1/:i * Block2/:i) ] return sum ] </Renaud> What was missing from my knowledge was how to reference a block using a variable (pardon my non-Rebol terminology) ..... When I'd tried things like Block1/Ind I got told that was a bad path. Your little colon makes all the difference. <Renaud> Note that you don't need to explicitly use RETURN in your functions, since the last value of the affectation is still available when Rebol exits the loop. </Renaud> True for MultiplyBlocks1. But MultiplyBlocks2 does need an explicit return, at least on my machine. And, maybe it's a matter of style, but I'd rather have an explicit return: it helps a stranger's eye when looking at code. It also means I can add debugging code without breaking assumptions. <Renaud> It's also interesting to notice the relative speed of each function (multiply 2 blocks of 15 integers):
</Renaud> I've changed my code to your "block/:i" format. It knocks 15% of the application run time. A worthwhile improvement indeed. <Brett> Next option would be to use Ladislav's %highfun.r script ( There you will find functions that will make this work more elegant, or a technique to make the functions I've shown more generic. </Brett> Thanks for this reference. I certainly don't want to spend my life reinventing the wheel, and especially not clunky wheels <Michael> To write the most compact piece of code for performing this task one could split some hairs and chop out a few chars here and there, but that does not necessarily make it more readable/maintainable or better. </Michael> I wasn't trying to write the shortest possible code. But I like to think that I write code that is easy to follow. Which is why the PICKs and FIRSTs in my two samples niggled. They cluttered a function that ought to be simple. Call it programmer's intuition, but I knew there must be a better way. But my RTFMing skills had failed to find it. Thanks for all the help guys. I think I am beginning to get the hang of this language! Colin