Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 49196
interpreted = N
texte = 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 Design800 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/ 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)
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 Design800 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/ Rob Marquardt

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:

Custom formulas.db (1998) Classified (1999) Bug Report, maybe (1997) Final Receipt (1999) videos.. yak..yak-lets take collection (1998) Webmerch Error (1998) [WebDNA] WebDNA Crashing or Not **YES** (2008) [WebDNA] =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BWebDNA=5D_=5BWebDNA=5D_Anyone_got_Pani?= (2013) limitation found on group searching (1997) Order file numbers different than the cart number. why? (2000) Not reading code (1997) Date Formats (1997) Username for Admin Group (1997) Calendar (1997) suggestions for a Windows based text editor? (2004) Physical Security for WebCatalog Directories (1997) Semi-OT: PanIP patent infringement case (2001) Nested search index (2000) Databases (2000) [TaxableTotal] - not working with AOL and IE (1997)