flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net>
Subject RE: try/catch vs in
Date Fri, 03 Jan 2014 03:42:37 GMT
>I know "in" can be expensive but so is try catch. I've run each though scout and it looks
like the in operator is orders of magnitude faster and caused no garbage collection both when
the field exists and when it >doesn't. Anyone have any insight/something to add?


Any chance data can be null at that point? Does your code handle that well? If you are good
on those fronts I think it's a very positive change. I hate when try/catch is used in this
way.

Mike


Mime
View raw message