Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make the loop faster: For i = 0 to 10 'code Next i I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any faster and on simple testing I can see no difference: Option Explicit Private lStartTime As Long Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long Sub StartSW() lStartTime = timeGetTime() End Sub Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "") MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage End Sub Sub test() Dim i As Long Dim c As Long Dim n As Long StartSW For i = 0 To 10000 For c = 0 To 1000 n = i + c Next Next StopSW End Sub Is there any truth in this? RBS |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Faster way to loop through two ranges | Excel Programming | |||
Is there a faster loop than this | Excel Programming | |||
Counter variable in For Loop | Excel Programming | |||
Should I use Do-While loop for my record counter? | Excel Programming | |||
Faster For-Next Loop? | Excel Programming |