Reverse a list

[Peter Haworth]

Right, just saw that in the dictionary.  But I'm still confused on why it
results in less messages.  Is it because the engine checks to see if there
is a private handler before sending a message along the message path?

As Richard and Mark mentioned, seems like any handlers in an object's
script that aren't called from anywhere else should be private.

I wonder if the same holds true in a behavior script?




On Mon Feb 16 2015 at 3:33:06 PM BNig <bernd.niggemann at uni-wh.de> wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
>
> Peter Haworth wrote
> > That's very interesting.  I've never used private since I had the
> > impression that the only thing it did was stop the handler from being
> > called outside of the script it appears in.
> >
> > But it seems there is a performance benefit too.  Why would that be, I
> > wonder.  I understand that the engine only needs to look in the current
> > script for a private handler, but isn't that where the search for a
> > handler
> > starts anyway?
>
>
> from the dictionary:
>
>
> > Using private handlers when appropriate will also result in a performance
> > gain as less messages are passed through the message path.
>
> Kind regards
> Bernd
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.
> 278305.n4.nabble.com/Reverse-a-list-tp4688611p4688930.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>