Re: Changing the Emacs engine to Guile

Op dinsdag 22 jun 2010 12:05 CEST schreef Cecil Westerhof: >> The above while found-match loop does not modify this-line. >> The result is to find the last match on the line. > > I just hacked it fast to try it out. I only checked the standard case > where I changed the space

Re: Multi-byte characters

Op maandag 21 jun 2010 15:20 CEST schreef Mike Gran: >> From: Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl > >> I am experimenting with Guile. It looks like the performance is not that >> good. But I continue. One of the things is multi-byte characters. I want >> to replace spac

Re: Multi-byte characters

Op maandag 21 jun 2010 11:54 CEST schreef Cecil Westerhof: > I am experimenting with Guile. It looks like the performance is not that > good. But I continue. One of the things is multi-byte characters. I want > to replace spaces with non breaking spaces. But Guile sees a non > br

Multi-byte characters

Guile see it as one character? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Re: Performance

rd input:1:1: In expression (unquote help): standard input:1:1: Unbound variable: unquote ABORT: (unbound-variable) and: Backtrace: In standard input: 2: 0* (unquote help) standard input:2:1: In expression (unquote help): standard input:2:1: Unbound variable: unquote

Re: Performance

ment: (set! found-match (regexp-exec reg-exp this-line)) the program takes 65% more time. So it looks like that rex-exps are very expensive. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Re: Performance

Op zaterdag 19 jun 2010 11:16 CEST schreef Andy Wingo: > On Fri 18 Jun 2010 22:50, Cecil Westerhof writes: > >> Why is this so expensive? > > The general answer to this question can be found by profiling. You > should factor your code into a function, then from the repl:

Performance

end-match 1 it takes 75 seconds. And when executing all the code, it takes 95 seconds. Why is this so expensive? I was thinking that Guile was very efficient, but when not just copying, it becomes much slower. Am I doing something wrong? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer

Re: How to read from a file

Op vrijdag 18 jun 2010 16:31 CEST schreef Cecil Westerhof: > When looking at: > http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/faq/OLD-guile-faq.html > > The following code should work: > #!/usr/bin/guile \ > -e main -s > !# > (use-modules (ice-9 readline)) > (activate-readl

How to read from a file

wrong? Also, it says: guile's IO performance is not very fast at the moment, so if you have to process large files, you may want to use a different model What would be a more efficient way to process a file? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.c

Re: Can guile scripts be compiled?

Op vrijdag 18 jun 2010 10:49 CEST schreef Andy Wingo: > On Thu 17 Jun 2010 11:54, Cecil Westerhof writes: > >> In Emacs Lisp (when used as a scripting language) you can compile the >> functions in your script and this makes a real difference. Is this >> possible in guil

How to convert from Emacs Lisp to Guile

compiles the function before it is executed, which speeds things considerable up. Is this also possible with Guile? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Re: Can guile scripts be compiled?

sult as necessary. I just start, so I can wait. ;-} In Emacs Lisp (when used as a scripting language) you can compile the functions in your script and this makes a real difference. Is this possible in guile? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Can guile scripts be compiled?

I just found out about guile. I am thinking about using it for scripting. Because of this I was wondering if guile scripts can be compiled for faster executing? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof