Question about Multi-Field Indexes

[John Esak]

By the way. You are SO right. I blow my own schema a lot, since I often will
declare a variable for clarity rather than use an object directly. It does
make a huge difference in the readability of the code... And with CPU cycles
as you say zillions per penny... Well, no reason not to write it all out the
way you are thinking it.

And since we're at discussing code writing somehow.  It used to be eons ago
that certain early versions of interpretive BASIC used to care if there were
"extra" spaces... So many of us who learned through that route (Dartmouth
BASIC in my case) started squishing out every unnecessary space.  God, that
is a horrific thing to do in filePro.  I wish people would just understand
that doing that is COMPLETELY unnecessary... And NOT DO IT.  Pick some
standard way of separating each command with the ; and stick to it.  I put
one semi-colon;  and then two spaces;  for every command;  period;  without
fails; and it is easy to read;  agreed?  

That's just my way.  They could put a space and the ; and then another
space.  That would be fine. Anything but doing;it this;way which;takes out
all;the space because;they think commands;will run faster;without extra
spaces;and it's good.  NO, it's bad... Very bad.  FilePro cares less about
spaces and doesn't run any better if you have extra ones by the hundreds and
hundreds. :-)

Now why did I squeeze that onto this dead thread anyway?  :-)

John

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.co
> m] On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:30 AM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: Question about Multi-Field Indexes
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, John and Scott.
> 
> And John, I -hardly- know this stuff better than you, or I 
> wouldn't have
> had to ask what must seem like a pretty novice question.  I'm 
> really rusty,
> although my brain has warmed back up to fP quite suddenly.  I 
> just rarely
> used compound indexes in fP, so I had to make sure what I was doing.
> 
> FWIW, I'd say it's more efficient to directly use an object.  
> There are
> certainly less opcodes and memory management involved in doing so than
> in allocating space for an uncast dummy, shifting the 
> contents into that
> address space, etc., and -then- doing the comparison.  
> However, CPU cycles
> are a zillion a penny these days, and the clarity of dealing with one
> explicit object is worth a few extra (cheap, on today's 
> hardware) opcodes
> and a miniscule bit of RAM.
> 
> Now perl...if it were in perl, I'd know it better than you!  ;)
> 
> Thank you both again for clearing up my question of the night!
> 
> mark->
> -- 
> Audio panton, cogito singularis.
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>