From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-07-12T04:22:02+09:00
Subject: Re: spliter of for...each: looping

> Seems a little cleaner/clearer, but that's IMHO of course :)  Your
> method is probably more efficient, since the one I mentioned creates
> an intermediate array.  I guess it depends on how performance critical
> the code in question is.

actually joins faster. just tested it out. also discovered that:

"junk#{x}morejunk" is much faster then "junk" << x << "morejunk"

thanks for all the help guys! i think i can speed up miter a bit just by
using join.

~transmi


On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 09:50, Josh Huber wrote:
> Tom Sawyer <transami@transami.net> writes:
> 
> > what i now do:
> > q = ''
> > arr.each_with_nindex do |x, n|
> >   q << 'junk' << x << 'morejunk' 
> >   q << ',' if n != -1
> > end
> >
> > how do you do it with join?
> >
> > note: how i used to do it is probably a tad faster actually
> 
> Hmm, how about something like...
> 
> arr.collect { |x| 'junk' + x + 'morejunk' }.join(",")
> 
> ?
> 
> Seems a little cleaner/clearer, but that's IMHO of course :)  Your
> method is probably more efficient, since the one I mentioned creates
> an intermediate array.  I guess it depends on how performance critical
> the code in question is.
> 
> -- 
> Josh Huber
> 
-- 
~transami

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
 temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
	-- Benjamin Franklin