--- Walter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Am I correct in my belief, based on admittedly limited observation,
> that practically everybody always uses an "@;" list?  If so, is there

> any good reason for this?  Is "@;" faster than "*;"?  If so, why?

way back when....yes, we used "@;" and "*;".  we had wee bit of logic
that determined if this was the 1st call or not to that particular
dataset or not and adjusted the list accordingly.

> And is it enough faster to justify the risk and inconvenience of
> having to recompile many programs whenever a minor structural
> database change is made?  Or am I missing something more significant?

i'll add that this was back on mpe V and i'm not terribly sure what
difference it would make today.  if you got time to throw a couple
little programs together with different lists, it would certainly be
interesting to see if there's any appreciable performance differences.

it's rather a pity that the buffer is incorporated at compile time
(like it would be thru a copylib).  if it could be pulled in a run time
that would make quite the difference.  ah well....          - d

=====
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
dgarverick -at- longs -dot- com
925-210-6631        Longs Drug Stores

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are.
"Ulysses", A. Tennyson

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *