Oh: one other gotcha to watch out for. When Racket compiles a file to .zo,
it discards source location information in syntax object templates. This
means that these trick also won't work in that case. It is possible to
preserve this syntax location information.
... long story short: various things
Hi again Danny,
Very interesting note, thanks for the details. The problem is a slightly
easier version of one the ProjectEuler.net problems (see here:
http://projecteuler.net/problem=210) Basically the hard part of the
problem is finding the grid points that fall in a circle with origin at
(125
> Yes, makes perfect sense, hmmm... there's probably a way to avoid so many
> sqrt calls.
>
This probably won't help. No individual iteration in that inner loop is
beyond 32 bits. The accumulated sum itself is what grows beyond the bounds
of a 32-bit representation. Reducing the number of sqrt
Hi Danny,
Yes, makes perfect sense, hmmm... there's probably a way to avoid so many
sqrt calls.
How do you like Go? How is the performance on this code?
Thanks,
-joe
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> Some of the involved numbers are bigger than can be represented in 32
> b
Some of the involved numbers are bigger than can be represented in 32 bits.
Therefore, the computation on 32 bit platforms will need to use more
software-emulated bigintegers to perform the computation successfully, and
that's where the performance difference is coming from.
I played with this b
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I've written three little examples [...]
Thanks, Robby, this is an enormous help. I'll play with these and see
what can be done.
Lindsey
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
The following code runs in reasonable time (about 5s) on 64-bit 5.3.4, but
takes about 20x as long on 32-bit. I adapted this code from some scheme
code on the PE forum. Thoughts?
Thanks,
-Joe
(define (euler210)
(define limit (expt 10 8))
(define ldiv4 (quotient limit 4))
(define ldiv8 (qu
Ok
I've tried Sean's shorter version (nice use of the macro), but the regex
isn't quite right for the ie/ei case, so the numbers are out.
We'll get there ...
-- Dan
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Hi Sean
If you look again on the page I hit on a similar for/fold solution
independently, which is now up on Rosetta
Amusingly, the Common Lisp version was submitted by a colleague of mine who
I mentioned this exercise to, so no doubt there'll be some friendly banter
tomorrow! So any further hel
Hello fellow Rosetta submitter!
The regular expressions are actually pretty useful to make a functional
version shorter than the imperative one!
First, forms with (for ...) and a bunch of (set!)'s is made functional by
(for/fold ...) where the final (values ...) functionally sets the new
values.
Sorry for the misinformation but Eli is of course right that regexp-quote
must be used.
Example:
(regexp-match? "a" "abc")
#t
(regexp-match? "." "abc")
#t ; WRONG! '.' matches every character
(regexp-match? (regexp-quote "a") "abc")
#t
(regexp-match? (regexp-quote ".") "abc")
#f
On
Then don't bother too much.
Though if you want to do something maybe you can just target
the most popular distributions maybe and leave the rest as is.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Laurent wrote:
> > Ahem, picked the wrong 32/64bits version... Sorry fo
Thanks Tobias & Eli
I've updated my submission to use (regexp-match? sub-str str).
[Also added the stretch goal solution, but could do with some refactoring
to reduce the joint line-count.]
-- Dan
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Thanks for your answer.
Did i understand it correct that neither quasisyntax nor quasisyntax/loc
recognize quasisyntax/loc inside. So if these are used, quasisyntax/loc
must currently be in the outmost layer?
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:07:39 +0200, Matthew Flatt
wrote:
The problem is that `
An hour ago, Daniel Prager wrote:
>
> (define (in? str sub-str)
> (not (string=? str (string-replace str sub-str ""
>
> Is there something I could have used out-of-the-box?
No -- eventually there should be these two things:
(string-index str sub [start 0] [end (string-length str)])
(l
Or even shorter
(regexp-match? sub-str str)
(Didn't know that worked)
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:34:37 +0200, Tobias Hammer
wrote:
I think regexp are the right choice:
(regexp-match? (regexp sub-str) str))
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:43:02 +0200, Daniel Prager
wrote:
I've just submitted a
I think regexp are the right choice:
(regexp-match? (regexp sub-str) str))
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:43:02 +0200, Daniel Prager
wrote:
I've just submitted a Racket solution to Rosetta Code for "I before E
except after C" (no stretch goal yet).
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/I_before_E_exc
I've just submitted a Racket solution to Rosetta Code for "I before E
except after C" (no stretch goal yet).
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/I_before_E_except_after_C
and noticed a couple of seeming omissions from the basic string operations,
or more likely the documentation. I ended up rustlin
10 minutes ago, Laurent wrote:
> Ahem, picked the wrong 32/64bits version... Sorry for the noise.
> Maybe there could be a simple check in the installation file that
> issues a warning whenever the machine's architecture is different
> from the installer's? Though since very few people seem to com
Ahem, picked the wrong 32/64bits version... Sorry for the noise.
Maybe there could be a simple check in the installation file that issues a
warning whenever the machine's architecture is different from the
installer's?
Though since very few people seem to complain about this, that's probably
no big
Hi all,
I've been keeping half an eye on this thread, a lot of people (me
included) use fluxus/racket for teaching programming to artists, and we
have a growing community of live coders who use it in performance
settings (VJing and making music too).
One of my current projects with fluxus is to u
The problem is that `quasisyntax' doesn't recognize `quasisyntax/loc'
as a kind of quasiquote.
In terms of plain quasiquote, your example is analogous to
> (define-syntax-rule (qq e) (quasiquote e))
> `(qq ,(+ 1 2))
'(qq 3)
as opposed to
> `(quasiquote ,(+ 1 2))
'`,(+ 1 2)
A difference is
Hi,
i have a problem with nested quasisyntax, quasisyntax/loc and unsyntax.
Two quasisyntax with one unsyntax gets me one level up, as expected. But
two quasisyntax/loc with unsyntax somehow gets me to the outmost level.
Can anybody tell me if this is intended or explain why this happens?
23 matches
Mail list logo
