0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: dgorsman on September 30, 2020, 02:31:22 PMTo reiterate one of the above points: without code, or even a program flow/outline, we're just taking wild stabs in the dark. My jab: you're performing unnecessary repetitive calculations rather than organizing flow for an early exit.Hi Lee. No. I use while every time and the lists decrease with each iteration. I've already done that. It's not about that.
To reiterate one of the above points: without code, or even a program flow/outline, we're just taking wild stabs in the dark. My jab: you're performing unnecessary repetitive calculations rather than organizing flow for an early exit.
Quote from: vlisp on September 30, 2020, 08:00:21 PMQuote from: dgorsman on September 30, 2020, 02:31:22 PMTo reiterate one of the above points: without code, or even a program flow/outline, we're just taking wild stabs in the dark. My jab: you're performing unnecessary repetitive calculations rather than organizing flow for an early exit.The code is very long. If the lean part of the code will not be able to get an idea of the problem. Yes there really are repetitive polygons as a result of the calculations. But this is the more economical option than comparing the newly obtained polygon with the already received polygons.We solve code problems, not riddles
Quote from: dgorsman on September 30, 2020, 02:31:22 PMTo reiterate one of the above points: without code, or even a program flow/outline, we're just taking wild stabs in the dark. My jab: you're performing unnecessary repetitive calculations rather than organizing flow for an early exit.The code is very long. If the lean part of the code will not be able to get an idea of the problem. Yes there really are repetitive polygons as a result of the calculations. But this is the more economical option than comparing the newly obtained polygon with the already received polygons.