From: "Joe Wölfel" <joe@...>
Date: 2008-09-21T08:08:08+09:00
Subject: Re: for or each?

Philip, I hadn't thought about your refactoring arguments.  I think  
I'm swayed by them.   I do change an each to a map, etc., on  
occasion.  Also, it seems simpler and less confusing to have one  
simple grammatical construction that does so many things.


On 20 sept. 08, at 18:52, Phlip wrote:

> Joe Wölfel wrote:
>
>> You can try my test if you like.  I haven't checked it  
>> carefully.   But it does seem like 'each' is much faster under  
>> both ruby 1.86 and  ruby 1.9.  The code is below.
>
> I just experimented with 'for' and found it does not reevaluate its  
> header each time it runs. That's the only thing that could have  
> explained the time difference, so maybe Matz & Co. have simply  
> neglected 'for' while optimizing .each, which everyone uses.  
> (Though it's still technically superior; not just an /ad populum/  
> thing...)
>
> Another reason to use .each is your collection-like class might  
> override it to do something cool...
>