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:

Banners (1997) WebCat2.0 acgi vs plugin (1997) Help, My code is freezing webcat (1996) notification solutions (1997) security (1997) sku not found (1997) Exclude by date - multiple (1997) TaxTotal Problem (1997) WebCatalog Hosting (1996) File commands and Wild Cards ?? (1998) [WebDNA] Anyone implement http://mollom.com/ or http://akismet.com/? (2009) all records returned. (1997) HideIf ip= OR ip= (1998) Problems with date math (1997) Sorting Date (2004) Web Catalog vs. ICAT (1997) NT considerations (1997) WebCat2b12 CGI Mac - [shownext] problem (1997) ShowNext (1997) Showif, Hideif reverse logic ? (1997)