Vincent: exact-zero? is defined through 'make-predicate' which uses contract machinery to generate the function. I filed a couple of bugs tracking some of the slowness issues. There is no `contract` form though so I doubt that the coach will find it.
http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=default&pr=14610 http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=default&pr=14611 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Great work, Jens. I am glad my approach as been adopted (and much improved > without deviating from the original idea of simpler recurrence). When can we > expect it in the next nightly build? > > Thanks, Jos > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com >> [mailto:jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jens Axel Søgaard >> Sent: domingo, 29 de junio de 2014 12:48 >> To: Matthew Flatt >> Cc: Jos Koot; Racket Users List >> Subject: Re: [racket] FW: q about code for partitions >> >> I have made a new vector version using zero? instead of exact-zero?. >> >> To give users a chance to remove the cache after doing >> partitions calculations, >> I have added set-partitions-cache. >> >> Code: >> >> https://github.com/soegaard/racket/blob/patch-14/pkgs/math-pkg > s/math-lib/math/private/number-theory/partitions.rkt >> >> Discussion: >> https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/697 >> >> /Jens Axel >> >> >> 2014-06-29 12:44 GMT+02:00 Jens Axel Søgaard <jensa...@soegaard.net>: >> > 2014-06-29 8:47 GMT+02:00 Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu>: >> >> It looks like "partitions2.rkt" ends up calling a contract-wrapped >> >> variant of `exact-zero?`. >> > >> > That explains why Eric saw an improvement, when the used #f >> instead of >> > 0 as the not-cached-yet value. >> > >> > /Jens Axel >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Jens Axel Søgaard > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
