XPSE

for x=0 to 200 do begin
blub
end

or

for x=0 to 200 step 20 do begin
blub
end

for x=200 downto 0 do begin
blub
end

...

Jörg
Sellmeyer

where one dazusagen must, that XPSE there too nothing other as The good old WhileLoop-Loop out power:
Compile Mark Separation

WhileLoop 0, 200

    Blub()

Wend

WhileLoop 0,200,20

    Blub()

Wend

WhileLoop 200,0,-1

    Blub()

Wend

Windows XP SP2 XProfan X4
... und hier mal was ganz anderes als Profan ...

Frank
Abbing

Yes, its spelling plenty kürzer and simpler is...

... even if to that Schluss rather one EndWhile there stalls!

ähm... thanks, but with a naked X goes there garnix, can itself neither declaren. It's all right by me but from others Found neither, at least not often:

{$iq}
declare x&
for x& = 0 to 200 step 20 do begin
print "0";
end
for x& = 0 to 200 step 20 do begin
print "1";
end
waitinput
end

...supply a Error Message in the .xpia File, The one undeclaretes INC concerns.
Perhaps likes the Precompiler the Semikolon not - but i beg your pardon? bring I then The Digits together ran, without first tricky a Sammelstring with + aufzubauen? meanwhile kenn I of course whom MkStr$()-commands, but it's about The prinzipielle application of ";" How in the good middle-aged BASIC

greeting
P. woodpecker

XPSE power there at all quite no WhileLoop-creep draus.

How ought to one because so with of/ one Variable (z.B. X) count can, and the too nested.

"Wegen" XProfan11 has XPSE in the reference on The ForSchleifen strain a BUG, these "INC-Meldung" The You there ansprichst must I first correct. the Semikolon is no trouble. See [...]

or. [...]

If I again back be, so Have ichs Yes promised, Gibts naturally zeitnah one Update. (but first to unpack of my toothbrush.)

Jörg
Sellmeyer

How one here beautiful sees, are the two last WhileLoop-mutants faster. against it is the simple WhileLoop-Loop slower as The of XPSE created While-Loop.
I had sooner the contrary vermutet.
Compile Mark Separation

 $IFNDEF INTERPRETER
 {$cleq}
 $ENDIF
ClearClip
Set("Decimals", 0)
Declare x&
Cls
Sleep 3000
Var c& = &GetTickCount
for x&=0 to 10000 do begin
Locate 1,1:print x&
end
C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
c& = &GetTickCount
for x&=0 to 10000 step 1 do begin
Locate 4,1:print x&
end
C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
c& = &GetTickCount
for x&=10000 downto 0 do begin
Locate 7,1:print x&
end
C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
Print "###############################"
c& = &GetTickCount

WhileLoop x&, 10000

    Locate 10,1:print &Loop

Wend

C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
c& = &GetTickCount

WhileLoop x&,10000,1

    Locate 13,1:print &Loop

Wend

C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
c& = &GetTickCount

WhileLoop 10000,x&,-1

    Locate 16,1:print &Loop

Wend

C& = &GetTickCount - c&
print c&
PutClip Str$(c&) + "
"
='./../../references-fonction/XProfan/waitinput/'>WaitInput

Results:
1922
2578
2578
2484
2469
2484

The Greenbox wished I still too time place

[offtopic]

Why sees The because so strange from?

[/offtopic]

Results: 1922 2578 2578 2484 2469 2484

Windows XP SP2 XProfan X4
... und hier mal was ganz anderes als Profan ...

Frank
Abbing

the Testprogramm ought to first any Laufwerksaktivitäten to wait it out, where one vorangestelltes Sleep 3000 ungemein helps. here my (abweichendes) Result, where any XPSE-creep slower works:

1140
1110
1093
####
1047
1094
1047

Jörg
Sellmeyer

Wow! what have Thou for a computer. I thought my new Intel Dualcore 4600 @2.4GH would quick. my Results now:

2547
2578
2547
2468
2469
2453

are but some Schwankungen drin:

2578

1859

2531

2469

2453

2469

particularly iFs first Loop becomes slower, if the Mainwindow to the first Print already there's. would have been so did i not calculated...
I Have Sleep and Cls time installed.

Windows XP SP2 XProfan X4
... und hier mal was ganz anderes als Profan ...

Frank
Abbing

Hüstel, my oller AMD Athlon 64 with 2.2 GHz and 1 GB RAM is already almost antique...

knows not, Why my mill today so slow is...
From 3,4 GHz HT is anyway nothing To remember:

2907
2906
2891
####
2797
2812
2813

means The ENDs the BEGIN blöcke fallen me none.

with END think I always on whom last compilierten commands. How wärs with FEND with For-creep? or BEND for BLOCK-END? Gibts others Einsatzmöglichkeiten for BEGIN, or heard the to FOR-Loop?

greeting