Actually, Mike, your two functions work just fine. (Equal branch). Mind you I checked that out over two hours ago, so this information might be out of date.
Rob On Jun 19, 6:59 pm, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups. 620...@mired.org> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:40:13 -0400 > > David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark and Mike you fail to address my deeper question. > > Maybe because you've failed to ask in your hurry to claim code is > non-idiomatic or calling our example rhetoric. > > > I've been using > > many different Clojure libraries all day long with the latest equals > > branch. Guess > > what? > > > No loop/recur bugs. > > I wouldn't expect anything else, for two reasons: > > 1) Most clojure code doesn't deal with integers - it deals with > symbols, strings, and sequences. Hence it won't run into this problem. > 2) The libraries are generally written by experienced users who will > have tweaked them for performance - meaning they've typed hinted > them, and thus avoided this problem. > > > When you guys start postIng your broken code that has this problem > > then people can start believing it is an issue for working code. > > I guess a perfectly natural expression of a reasonable algorithm that > works under 1.1 and doesn't on the equal branch isn't "broken" because > it's the same function we've been using all along. So here's some new > examples, pulled in sequence from some of my combinatorics code: > > (defn count-in [value col] > (loop [value value col col res 0] > (if (empty? col) > res > (recur value (rest col) (if (= (first col) value) (inc res) res))))) > > (defn ones-n-zeros [vectors] > (loop [vectors vectors m-zeros 0 m-ones 0] > (if (empty? vectors) > [m-zeros m-ones] > (let [data (first vectors) > zeros (count-in 0 data) > ones (count-in 1 data)] > (recur (rest vectors) (if (> zeros ones) (inc m-zeros) m-zeros) > (if (> ones zeros) (inc m-ones) m-ones)))))) > > No, I haven't verified it fails - I've given up trying to check out > the branch, as hg convert failed, and git (after reinstalling over a > broken version) keeps complaining about "warning: remote HEAD refers > to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout." However, my reading of the > proposal is that the inc's here will cause the same problems as the > *'s in the perfectly reasonable factorial example. > > Now go ahead and claim that that's not very good code, because an > expert would have type hinted it or written it with map & apply or > some such, or that there's a contrib library somewhere with a faster > implementation of count-in in it. That, after all, is your rhetoric. > > But that's my point. I want the *obvious* code to work. I'll worry > about making it fast after I've made it right. If you want a read-only > language that requires an expert to get working code in a reasonable > amount of time, you can always write in Perl or C. > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html > Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. > > O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail -www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
