Re: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 49197
interpreted = N
texte = The engine creates a new instance of the comment context for every [!] token it encounters. So, in the example below, the engine creates 11 context instances (for just one iteration of the loop). Without the extra comments, the engine would only create 5 context instances. However, the comment context code is fast and small, so the performance hit is not very significant. The new [return] context was created to eliminate the need to use those extra comment blocks when writing a function definition, as a convenience to the programmer. And the code will run a bit faster.> -----Original Message----- > From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of > Rob Marquardt > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:08 PM > To: WebDNA Talk > Subject: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings > > > I was looking through the 5.0 docs when I found this under > the [return] > context: > > > [function name=add_em_up][!] > > [/!][text]result=0[/text][!] > > [/!][loop start=1&end=10][!] > > [/!][text]result=[math][result]+[index][/math][/text][!] > > [/!][/loop][!] > > [/!][result][!] > > [/!][/function] > > > > > > Executing the above function, and wrapping the result with > URL tags, we get: > > 55 > > > > The extra 'garbage' is gone, but using all those [!][/!] > pairs is cumbersome, > > and does add some extra parsing overhead. > > Just how *much* parsing overhead? An appreciable amount? I've > been doing > this damn near everywhere as a matter of course for years now. > > [suppressReturns] didn't make it into 5.0? ; ) > > > Rob Marquardt > Designer/Resident Wirehead > Toast Design > > 800 Washington Avenue North > Minneapolis MN 55401 > 612.330.9863 v > 612.321.9424 f > www.toastdesign.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings (Scott Anderson 2003)
  2. Re: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings (Brian Fries 2003)
  3. Re: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings (Scott Anderson 2003)
  4. Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings (Rob Marquardt 2003)
The engine creates a new instance of the comment context for every [!] token it encounters. So, in the example below, the engine creates 11 context instances (for just one iteration of the loop). Without the extra comments, the engine would only create 5 context instances. However, the comment context code is fast and small, so the performance hit is not very significant. The new [return] context was created to eliminate the need to use those extra comment blocks when writing a function definition, as a convenience to the programmer. And the code will run a bit faster.> -----Original Message----- > From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of > Rob Marquardt > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:08 PM > To: WebDNA Talk > Subject: Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings > > > I was looking through the 5.0 docs when I found this under > the [return] > context: > > > [function name=add_em_up][!] > > [/!][text]result=0[/text][!] > > [/!][loop start=1&end=10][!] > > [/!][text]result=[math][result]+[index][/math][/text][!] > > [/!][/loop][!] > > [/!][result][!] > > [/!][/function] > > > > > > Executing the above function, and wrapping the result with > URL tags, we get: > > 55 > > > > The extra 'garbage' is gone, but using all those [!][/!] > pairs is cumbersome, > > and does add some extra parsing overhead. > > Just how *much* parsing overhead? An appreciable amount? I've > been doing > this damn near everywhere as a matter of course for years now. > > [suppressReturns] didn't make it into 5.0? ; ) > > > Rob Marquardt > Designer/Resident Wirehead > Toast Design > > 800 Washington Avenue North > Minneapolis MN 55401 > 612.330.9863 v > 612.321.9424 f > www.toastdesign.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Scott Anderson

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Sendmail for intranet server (2004) New Guy (2000) How do I hyperlink to returned image filename? (2000) emailer (1997) Forms Search Questions (1997) CyberCash on OS X (2005) PCS Emailer's role ? (1997) Um...how do I ask this? (1999) Associative lookup style? + bit more (1997) encryption in browser? (1998) [ShowIf] and empty fields (1997) Resume Catalog ? (1997) New index for docs (1997) Help! WebCat2 bug (1997) OT: RAID Options (2004) LineItem variable set (2007) Rephrased: Web Site Stats (2002) Bulletin Board (1998) [Webcat 2]Next (1997) WebDNA tags in WebMerchant email templates ... (1997)