Has anyone done anything more with turning Scribble manuals into EPUB
format?
I see Ryan's posts from a couple years ago, but I'm just checking that
this is the current state of the art.
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive//2012-January/049889.html
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/arc
Although there didn't seem much interest in this when I posted about
it previously, I went ahead and wrote it anyway for myself: I just
released a ruby gem which will run Rackunit tests as you update your
code. The source is here: https://github.com/neomantic/guard-rackunit
with installation inst
Before posting, I had repeated this multiple times, running this code
inside a sandbox.
After seeing your reply, I tried but couldn't repro it at the command line.
I could still repro it in the sandbox. But with a fresh sandbox, now I
can't repro it anymore. I guess some mysterious bit of state w
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 10:28:31AM -0700, Jon Stenerson wrote:
> If anyone has linux available can you try this out and see if it is
> an actual bug, and not just my installation? I did reinstall Racket
> 6 to no avail. I also checked that this does not happen on Windows.
> Thanks.
>
> If I enter
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:10:20AM -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:33:42 -0500, "David T. Pierson" wrote:
> > cpu time: 220 real time: 220 gc time: 0
> > cpu time: 112 real time: 112 gc time: 0
> > cpu time: 60 real time: 58 gc time: 0
> > cpu time: 28 real time: 29 gc
I get :
> (let ((v (time (make-vector 5000 0
(time (vector-length v))
(time (vector-length v))
(time (vector-length v))
(void))
cpu time: 188 real time: 191 gc time: 12
cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0
cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0
cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time:
As for length:
(for ([i 3]) (collect-garbage))
(let ((ls (time (make-list 5000 0
(time (length ls))
(time (length ls))
(time (length ls))
(void))
It's what I would expect:
cpu time: 6733 real time: 6744 gc time: 6419
cpu time: 141 real time: 141 gc time: 0
cpu time: 145 real time
I see, thanks for the detailed explanation. I understand the issue is whether
the cost associated with cons checking arguments prior to creating the pair is
acceptable or not but truly if cons is checking for list? by whether a bit is
set or not, wouldn't that be negligible compared to the cost
At Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:33:42 -0500, "David T. Pierson" wrote:
> Also, when I do:
>
> $ racket
> Welcome to Racket v6.0.0.2.
> > (let ((ls (make-list 5000 0)))
> (time (list? ls))
>
> (ti
I'm joining in this thread because I'm now wondering about the same questions.
It seems to me that if a list is created via list or make-list then the bits
should have been set on the car of the new list, so all the list predicates
have to do is check the first element in O(1) time.
Likewise co
I sit corrected :-) (I had it right at some point)
On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> If every cons set those bits, it would still take constant time because you'd
> only have to look one deep. However, the important part is that currently
> cons never has to inspect its arg
I've never measured carefully enough to be sure that it's better to put
the cost in `list?` instead of `cons`, but my guess is that the cost is
better in `list?`.
There's an `unsafe-cons-list` function sets the is-a-list bit when
creating a pair. That is, it always sets the bit without a test on t
If every cons set those bits, it would still take constant time because
you'd only have to look one deep. However, the important part is that
currently cons never has to inspect its arguments. Given that cons may be
called frequently in a program that never uses list?, one does not want to
pay fo
You want cons (the frequent action) to take constant time: allocate pointer,
set two fields.
On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:33 PM, David T. Pierson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:03:57PM -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> The first/rest operations do not use a memoization table. They test using
>> t
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:03:57PM -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> The first/rest operations do not use a memoization table. They test using
> the list? primitive, which is built in and actually has a couple of tag
> bits reserved on every cons object for memoizing its results. So the
> operation r
If anyone has linux available can you try this out and see if it is an
actual bug, and not just my installation? I did reinstall Racket 6 to no
avail. I also checked that this does not happen on Windows. Thanks.
If I enter any program in DrRacket 6.0 on Ubuntu
#lang racket
"OK"
then do "Creat
16 matches
Mail list logo
