tweaking efficiency

[Brian K. White]

Is there any difference in the amount of work done behind the scenes between 
these two?

... < xlate(@t4,"/","") < xlate(@tm,":","")

... < xlate(@t4<@tm,"/:","")

They don't produce the exact same output, the 2nd one leaves more than one 
space between the two values but that's fine because they are building a 
string of cmmand line arguments and the extra spaces don't hurt so for me 
they are functionaly equivalent.

The 1st version is more quicly read and understood, but I'm always trying to 
make things as efficient as possible so the 2nd version occured to me.
It's one less comand, but it's doing the same work so unless there is some 
overhead just calling and returning from a command at all, I'm guessing 
there is no advantage to the 2nd way?

It's obviously more an academic question than anything. If this was in a 
tight loop that ran hundreds of times per second for a hundred different 
users at the same time, it might have a real world consequence, but that's 
not the case.

Actually originally I had this but I'm just assuming that xlate is lighter 
weight than doedit

... < doedit(@t4,"yymd") < xlate(@tm,":","")

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!