Hello
>
>
>> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
>> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
>> loops. I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
>> number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
>> and then to *not* update 'i' inside the inner-loop. That structure is
>> really just confusing, imv (I certainly didn't entirely follow what was
>> happening there the first time I read it). Isn't there a function you
>> could use to pull out the array slice you need on each iteration through
>> the array?
I looked on code again. There are a few results:
I'll change identifiers 'i' and 'j' with any, that you send. It's
usual identifiers for nested loops and in this case they has really
well known semantic - it's subscript of array.
But others changes are more difficult
we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
array_get_slice, because there is high overhead of array_seek
function. I redesigned the initial part of main cycle, but code is
little bit longer :(, but I hope, it is more readable.
Regards
Pavel
>>
>
> I don't know a better short index identifiers than I used. But I am
> not against to change.
>
> I'll try to redesign main cycle.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel Stehule
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk086MEACgkQrzgMPqB3kigCzQCffx0iVSMjU2UbOgAOaY/MvtOp
>> iKsAnA5tdhKxTssdXJ+Rda4qkhNVm26g
>> =Yn5O
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>
