Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: Mary Pegg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:00:52 GMT
shimmyshack wrote:
it's not rude or abrasive, to notice you don't take advice and say so,
perhaps a little bruusque though, and I apologise if I made you cross.
Apology gladly accepted!
I thought about this further by taking it to extremes. If I was
calling func(a1), func(a2)... func(a100) then it's a no-brainer,
use a for loop. OTOH if I had only two to do, a for loop would
look a bit silly. So which side of the line is five?
--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".
.
- References:
- There's got to be a better way
- From: Mary Pegg
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: Snahad00
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: Rami Elomaa
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: Mary Pegg
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: shimmyshack
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: Mary Pegg
- Re: There's got to be a better way
- From: shimmyshack
- There's got to be a better way
- Prev by Date: Re: There's got to be a better way
- Next by Date: Re: Tree functions
- Previous by thread: Re: There's got to be a better way
- Next by thread: Re: There's got to be a better way
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|