Yes, that's definitely a good idea. I tried a few other things (including that, I think) after I posted that but nothing really worked and it turned out that the tail-recursive version even had a bug.
I couldn't find a way to really keep the amount of copying of the data structures (stack, finished above) very low and thus my algorithm was slow. I know that the data structures are persistent and share structure but it still was slow for that many elements. I finally solved the problem by implementing an imperative solution with Java arrays and type hints. It ran in ~20-30 seconds. On Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:22:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Compall wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 10:37 -0700, Balint Erdi wrote: > > (let [neighbors (persistent! > > (reduce > > (fn [c u] (if (explored u) c (conj! c u))) > > (transient []) > > (G v)))] > > What happens if you do ^^^ *after* vvv? > > > (explored v) (recur vs explored lhalf rhalf (inc iter-cnt)) > > -- > Stephen Compall > "^aCollection allSatisfy: [:each | aCondition]": less is better than > > > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
