Set gJSC to current application's JSContext's new() Set valueTest to (JSC()'s evaluateScript:("const xxxxx = 42 xxxxx"))'s toInt32() (The xxxxx constant persisted in the JSContext between runs, and constants can’t be reassigned, so there was an error, and an undefined return) use AppleScript version "2.4" - Yosemite (10.10) or later applescript text, the JSContext clearly persists between Applescript runs (tho not, we hope, between recompilations).įor example, the second run of the following script returns 0 ( toInt32()'s version of undefined) where the first run returns 42 You may well be right – what I remain unclear about is how or when the system releases the JSContext. (Is there a corresponding option in anything like OSACompile ?) That’s very encouraging and I hadn’t spotted it. Thank you very much for taking the time to test – that’s been really helpful. In trials of 100 runs here the difference is significant: the former takes more than six times as long. (m圜ontext()'s evaluateScript:("2 * " & x))'s toDouble()
(m圜ontext()'s evaluateScript:("Math.sqrt(" & x & ")"))'s toDouble() If theContext = missing value then set theContext to current application's JSContext's new() If I compare your second version with something straight forward: use AppleScript version "2.4" - Yosemite (10.10) or later But then, you’re already adding a significant amount of overhead. It’s likely to add considerably to the time taken. Item 1 of ((ca's NSArray's arrayWithObject:objCValue) as list) mReturn :: First-class m => (a -> b) -> m (a -> b) Lift 2nd class handler function into 1st class script wrapper Set end of lst to |λ|(item i of xs, i, xs) JsEval("encodeURIComponent('" & s & "')") Global gJSC - NB If this is used, must be set to missing value before end of script
#Omnigraffle for mac os 10.12.6 manual#
Here is a first experiment in reusing the same JSContext across several calls from AppleScript, though it does require manual release of a global AS variable at the end. I haven’t measured the cost of repeated – perhaps it’s not exorbitant enough to warrant much circumvention ?
0 kommentar(er)
