I don't think my computer has enough memory to test that. But, you're right, I might have spoken hastily.
Rob On Jun 19, 7:26 pm, Aaron Cohen <aa...@assonance.org> wrote: > I actually believe it will throw an overflow exception if col contains > more than Integer.MAX_VALUE elements. Hard to confirm without getting > bored though. > > -- Aaron > > > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Rob Lachlan <robertlach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 might be out of date.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 -- 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
