If you were concerned about.

Elvis: E.g. one iteration over the array.

Eifler: Well there are multiple rows as well

Caskey: I won’t know how many

Vafiadis: Basically you have one object, or two. One of them is a table of x coords, the other is a table of y coords

Gransberry: How do I know the y coordinates?

Favorito: I have to find those first

Vafiadis: You loop through the array once, and categorize each item into said table. You handle collisions with an array

Elvis: Gillice: http://pastie.org/10424398

Elvis: You don’t already know the y coordinate?

Elvis: I figured it was a property on text

Hoffstot: I know it as soon as I have found the first element of a row

Vafiadis: It’s of the form {x:x, y:y}, {x:x1, y:y1}, {x2, y:y2}, right?

Sulit: Which I can only find by its x-coordinate at the moment

Kever: Disregarding your mishaps

Elvis: Gillice: would what i suggested work?

Vafiadis: If the array is in that form, you can form a complete lookup table

Amparo: I’m not sure if that provides a performance improvement over using the original array

Thornley: Hence I’m not sure if I’m following completely

Elvis: Gillice: it’s substantially better, since you only iterate over it once.

Burnette: I need to call getusermedia synchronously, in other word i need to way to wait for the user selection before doing other stuff with the mic, do you have any idea how to wait for the callback to complete before proceeding?

Croney: Tcsc: yeah, but then I iterate over the lookup table instead?

Stickland: I guess I can design that to be more efficient though

Vafiadis: That’s still only iterating over it twice. instead of array.length2 times

Elvis: You’d do that outside of the loop though

Vafiadis: Since the lookup table will be shorter, unless every row is unique

Aberle: I’m not sure how it’d be shorter

Elvis: You’re only iterating over rows

Elvis: Andnot over the elements of the rows

Kallio: But I’d have to iterate over the original at least twice, no?

Mcnuh: First to compose the look-up table of rows

Lagraize: And then to find the y-coordinates of the rows

Kneisler: By searching for their x

Elvis: Didn’t you say you were doing this in a nested loop though

Vafiadis: The way you’re describing it, though, you aren’t iterating twice

Vafiadis: You’re iterating the entire array once per element of the original array

Elvis: Arr.forEachfunction { arr.forEachfunction {} } will iterate over the array many more than 2 times

Vafiadis: IE, you’re doing array.length * array.length iterations

Elvis: The only time it will run over it twice is for arrays of length 1.

Montelle: Tcsc: it wouldn’t iterate for each text string though

Winterberg: Only for the ones that match the x-coordinate of a row

Elvis: How do you find those?

Elvis: You have to iterate over the otehrs to get to them

Leta: The 2nd forEach wouldn’t run for each text in the array

Benny: And it’d be a filter more likely

Elvis: That’s still worst case On2

Harajly: But yeah, still not the most efficient

Elvis: I mean it might not matter for the size of what your’e dealing with.

Elvis: But if you are concerned about performance there you’ll want to go for the On solution, definitely

Blackshear: Yeah, I’ll compose a lookup table of all possible rows

Pompey: Tcsc: thanks for the idea

Vafiadis: If you were concerned about memory usage in such a situation rare these days you could also keep the original array sorted by y coordinate or use a binary search tree, but I digress