Optimizations

[TJF]

Assuming that I guessed right in my previous post, this may be your solution:

• IF BIT(&b001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001, bx + by + bz) THEN

(For bx + by + bz <= 46. You may adapt it up to values of 63.)

[Gonzo]

nicely done, i definitely didnt see any aliasing or excessive corridoring :)
the pattern makes trees look less volumptuos and saves a bit of processing!

[Gonzo]

what exactly does andalso and orelse do?
i read that they were short-circuiting so i guess they're like an early exit in programming terms?

[TJF]

This

• IF a = b ANDALSO c = d THEN

is equal to

• IF a = b THEN IF c = d THEN

The second expression (c = d) will only be checked if the first (a = b) does match.

Similar ORELSE: the second expression will only be checked if the first doesn't match.

You can speed up your code by puting time consuming computations (ie a function call) in the second expression.

[yetifoot]

Someone earlier in the thread asked why andalso/orelse are slow.

When i added those operators, I based them on top of IIF. It's certainly possible to do it much better, but that was the only way I could find at the time that worked correctly, so I decided it was better to have the operators, working correctly, but not well optimized, than not have the operators at all.

[fxm]

Someone earlier in the thread asked why andalso/orelse are slow.

When i added those operators, I based them on top of IIF. It's certainly possible to do it much better, but that was the only way I could find at the time that worked correctly, so I decided it was better to have the operators, working correctly, but not well optimized, than not have the operators at all.

Wanting an optimized program, I recently faced this problem and I still must code nested 'If'.
Consequently, I filled a feature request: Execution speed optimization of 'Andalso' and 'Orelse'