Re: the Holy Grail of AppleScript lists
Re: the Holy Grail of AppleScript lists
- Subject: Re: the Holy Grail of AppleScript lists
- From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:16 -0500
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Bill Briggs wrote:
At 8:11 PM +0100 19/03/03, Helmut Fuchs wrote:
At 14:41 Uhr -0400 19.03.2003, Bill Briggs wrote:
At 1:09 PM -0500 19/03/03, Paul Skinner wrote:
set l to {"3", "a", "C", "c", "B", 2, "A", 1}
repeat 10 times
set l to l & l
end repeat
-->list of 8291 items.
Nothing strange about that. You're taking an 8 member list and
doubling it 10 times. Each time through the loop the "l" is twice as
long as it was before. Do the math. It's (2^10)*8
Well, 8291 doesn't look like 8192 to me, but I credit that to a typo.
But I suppose Paul meant that he found a way to overcome some strange
implementation limits, when dealing with lists: 8192 items is larger
than this certain limit. Am I correct?
If that's the case, then I completely misread his post.
This works, so I don't think it's a number limitation on lists he
meant. Shrug.
set x to "a"
set y to {"B"}
repeat 10000 times
copy x to end of y
end repeat
y -->too big to display, but no error, no apparent problem
- web
Indeed. AppleScript has always had a limit on the length of a list
that can be returned from a single command. Concatenating does not
invoke this limit. Returning a list from 'text items of' or 'paragraphs
of' etc. does.
The point that I should have explicitly stated was that this script
seems to defy this limit.
Paul Skinner
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.