From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6295 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2017 16:39:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 22437 Received: (qmail 20502 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2017 16:39:01 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta01.eastlink.ca by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(24.224.136.30):SA:0(-0.7/5.0):. Processed in 1.40703 secs); 04 Feb 2017 16:39:01 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.eastlink.ca designates 24.224.136.30 as permitted sender) X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=DOfN2GFb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=aWG3ZaPfpGbmBTXoUM+q2Q==:117 a=aWG3ZaPfpGbmBTXoUM+q2Q==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=RxprMuS7-KPHFqG5Hs0A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.17.185 Subject: Re: efficiency To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <20170204150513.4087c834@ntlworld.com> <20170204154736.5a51b119@ntlworld.com> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: <63db3cdf-833e-d5b5-b519-2c9eeeeb595c@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 08:38:52 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <20170204154736.5a51b119@ntlworld.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 04/02/17 07:47 AM, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > I'm sure this has come up before, but if you're in a position where a > saving of this kind is important, there's a good chance you shouldn't > really be using a shell at all. Of course. Still it's good to understand the theory of the thing. As I said, in practice the difference was a milisecond but I backed the wrong horse, which is instructive since it suggests that the shell likes fewer lines more than it likes simplified calculation. Just curious. In practice I'll always go for robustness and better code style.