Discussion Forums at Tactical Neuronics


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: scratch that - no serious CAICL problems :) From:
John Reder

Matt,

I'll put in in the queue for evaluation/consideration.

It's been a while since I took a good look at that logic. Does anyone have a example debug watch file handy that illustrates how it currently charges subclicks on a return, I don't have the code with me today.

Thanks,
John

> heh, i just remembered that shareware people don't have the benifit of subclicks. But, I'd still like to know if a freebe return would be good. :)
>
>
> > Hello again Mr. Reder.
> >
> > I have a question about the return statement. Why does it take an extra subclick? I am used to using an object oriented approach to programming. Consequently, I sectioned my code up using a bunch of gosub and return commands. But, I'm being penalized a subclick for each block of code. Is it possible that you could make the return command a freebe for all of us object oriented people? Just a humble suggestion.
> >
> > thanks for reading my comment :)
> >
> > -matt
> >
> > > I'm glad you worked that issue out! Thanks for your idea, i'll try to work that into the next release.
> > >
> > > Here are your answers:
> > >
> > > There is a recursion limit of 100 levels deep.
> > >
> > > A gosub and a goto both take 1 subclick but a gosub will take an extra subclick when you use the return statement, so it atcually takes up a little more processing power.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps!
> > > John
> > >
> > >

This message is a Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: scratch that - no serious CAICL problems :) from matt

Replies to this message:


© 2001, John A. Reder.