As I've added more and more images to my Scribble output I've noticed
empirically a considerable slowdown.
Currently it takes around 56 seconds to process my main file (which
includes around 36 figures); 8 seconds when I commented out all the images.
In hunting for the main bottleneck I came acro
On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:37:08 -0700
Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:45:59 +0100, Manfred Lotz wrote:
> > This might be a stupid question. But how do I find out in Racket if
> > a file is a socket or a haracter resp. block device file.
>
> I don't think any functions currently provide
Perfect, I didn't know structs could be used like that.
Thank you!
As a follow-up question, can you directly create functions with a custom
printing method, without having to go through structs?
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Similarly, you can represent safe function
At Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:45:59 +0100, Manfred Lotz wrote:
> This might be a stupid question. But how do I find out in Racket if a
> file is a socket or a haracter resp. block device file.
I don't think any functions currently provide that information. (The
only related function that comes to mind is
This might be a stupid question. But how do I find out in Racket if a
file is a socket or a haracter resp. block device file.
--
Manfred
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
I wouldn't bother profiling within DrRacket. I think that feature might
still be for small student programs.
For doing performance tuning, you can do *some* of it within DrRacket
(like comparing the timings of many iterations of two different
implementations of a function), but then you have
*cough* my test cases at the moment amount to pressing the keys and seeing
that the appropriate actions are being taken. I suppose I will need to
write official tests.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> It is an unusual way to break syntax but I can't think of a serio
Don't run profiling within drracket. DrRacket is a wonderful IDE
(and I use it on a daily basis for almost all my Racket programming)
but profiling in drracjet is broken and unreliable in information
gathering. (Keep in mind that DrRacket is an OS running atop of an
OS (linux, windows, mac), whic
It is an unusual way to break syntax but I can't think of a serious drawback
off the top of my head. (I am sure Ryan and Matthew can think of one.) Does it
pass your test cases?
On Jan 5, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote:
> Ha! The below solution is a macro-making macro that re-syntaxif
Ha! The below solution is a macro-making macro that re-syntaxifies "params
..." to "belong to" the inner macro:
(define-syntax-rule (make-commands name params ...)
(define-syntax (name inner-stx)
(syntax-case inner-stx ()
[(_ (c f) (... ...))
(with-syntax ([(ps (... ...)) (datu
Greetings, racketeers.
I have recently completed a port of most a large scripting language program I
wrote (large by my standards, which is on the order of tens of thousands of
lines of code) into pure Racket from some other scripting language, with the
object of getting faster execution.
Now
Hi Frank, and everyone else,
The snippet I posted is not C++ with parentheses:
-- the function main encapsulates the essence (and I prefer to do so to test
at the REPL not while drracket evaluates the def area)
-- the auxiliary functions are mostly functional
-- even though they instantiat
On Jan 5, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Sean Kanaley wrote:
>
> (define-for-syntax (input-params stx)
> (datum->syntax stx '(state delta-time)))
It sounds to me like that you want to generate the above macro from a macro and
then it should all work. But I might be misunderstanding what you're asking --
Hello,
First the short question: is there a way that user code can set some sort
of in-effect global variable to determine how a library macro will expand?
The problem I have is there doesn't seem to be a way to combine the
concepts of parameters/globals and transformer environments.
Long part in
14 matches
Mail list logo
