I've pushed a repair to `bitwise-bit-field`.
Thanks for the report!
At Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:32:22 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote:
>
> ;; from Racket reference 4.2.2.6
> (define (bitwise-bit-field* n start end)
> (bitwise-and (sub1 (arithmetic-shift 1 (- end start)))
> (
What do you get when you evaluate #b11100010 ?
rac
On Jun 16, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> ;; from Racket reference 4.2.2.6
> (define (bitwise-bit-field* n start end)
>(bitwise-and (sub1 (arithmetic-shift 1 (- end start)))
>(ar
On 6/13/2014 3:52 PM, Alexsandro Soares wrote:
Hi all,
I intend to teach programming and robotics for my ten years old
daughter. I want to use the Lego Mindstorms EV3 that contains an ARM9
processor. Is there any version of Racket generating code to EV3? Or
maybe another Lisp or Scheme di
;; from Racket reference 4.2.2.6
(define (bitwise-bit-field* n start end)
(bitwise-and (sub1 (arithmetic-shift 1 (- end start)))
(arithmetic-shift n (- start
> (bitwise-bit-field #b11100010 0 31)
-30
> (bitwise-bit-field* #b111
Thank you!
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:29:04 -0500 от Robby Findler :
>Some elaboration on this point, just in case you've not seen it
>before: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html
>
>On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>< matth...@ccs.neu.edu > wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 16, 201
Take a look at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.24.3070
It basically gives you a PLAI/EOPL style function for creating the graph as a
rational value (shared graph). You will need to figure out a few extra
features.
On Jun 16, 2014, at 8:27 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Some elaboration on this point, just in case you've not seen it
before: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Roman Klochkov wrote:
>
>> Tested in DrRacket 6.0.1 winXP x86
>
> Please don't ti
These graphs (not graphics) are mathematical abstractions. You will
hear about some of these graphs when you study compilers.
(Separately, there can also be diagrams (or graphics) to visualize these
graphs. But that's probably not what you're looking for.)
I think your code security analysi
Dear
What do we use the following graphics for ?? such as Program Dependence
Graph (PDG) and (CFG) Control Flow Graph and System Dependence Graph (SDG)
and Data Flow Graphic (DFG) and Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs) and Path
Analysis.
- How do I use these graphics for semantic or syntax?. is there
p
Most core formlets return binding structures. Your formlet uses
input-int and input-string, which are short-hands. For instance,
input-string is (to-string (required (text-input))) [1]. In contrast,
checkbox is core, so if you look at its documentation [2] you can see
the return type is, (formlet/c
On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
>>> wrote:
> Typed Racket functions
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
>> wrote:
>>>
Typed Racket functions are
just plain Racket functions. We could add some extra metadata to ev
On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
> wrote:
>>
>>> Typed Racket functions are
>>> just plain Racket functions. We could add some extra metadata to every
>>> value that held its type,
>>
>> It wouldn’t have to be every
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
>> Typed Racket functions are
>> just plain Racket functions. We could add some extra metadata to every
>> value that held its type,
>
> It wouldn’t have to be every value, it could just put that information in for
> :has-type expressi
On Jun 16, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> This is exactly what predicates are for, in general. However, you
> can't have predicates that check things about functions -- there's no
> information there at runtime to look at.
I was kind of wondering if there was anything that coul
This is exactly what predicates are for, in general. However, you
can't have predicates that check things about functions -- there's no
information there at runtime to look at. Typed Racket functions are
just plain Racket functions. We could add some extra metadata to every
value that held its typ
Would there be a way to test the type for making decisions at run-time (not
just with predicates)?
For example:
(cond [(:has-type? f (Number -> Any))
(f 1)]
[(:has-type? f (String -> Any))
(f "1")])
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> That's what I t
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> Tested in DrRacket 6.0.1 winXP x86
Please don't time things inside of DrRacket.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
NEU CCIS suffered from a major power outage for all day yesterday (until early
this morning). Our systems stuff described it with "the UPS that feeds the room
had failed, could not be restarted, and could not be bypassed." Sorry for any
inconveniences -- Matthias
_
Thank you for taking a look.
For my scenario, your fix is great for me. It is a rare occurrence when
this problem occurs, and the end result is that a user of my websites has
to hit the refresh button once.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 11:40 AM, Curtis
I think of such applications as being two pieces: the first is a
boring transmission of the Javascript program, using a file; the
second is a HTTP/JSON-based RPC server. I use web-server/dispatch to
lay out the RPC calls and json to encode them.
Here's an example that runs the package server:
htt
That's what I thought you wanted it for so my answer stands -- Matthias
On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:55 AM, Spencer Florence wrote:
> This is about making decisions at compile time. Specifically I have a
> sequence of expressions I want to partition into expressions of some type T
> and expression
At Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:14:55 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> I remade program to avoid optimizing out calulations and reduce GCing
> [...]
> and even
> cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0
> cpu time: 63 real time: 63 gc time: 47
> cpu time: 15 real time: 15 gc time: 0
> cpu time: 16 real time: 16
I remade program to avoid optimizing out calulations and reduce GCing
#lang racket
(define (test1 x y z)
(if x
(+ y z)
(- y z)))
(define (test2 x)
(if x
(λ (y z) (+ y z))
(λ (y z) (- y z
(define (run1 data)
(foldl (λ (x y) (test1 #t x y)) 0 data))
(define (run2 data)
(foldl (λ (x y) ((test2 #
I have "debugging & profiling" on.
Disable debugging. Now have all zeroes :-)
cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0
I will check with optimization. If find something strange, I'll write.
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:58:16 +0100 от Matthew Flatt :
>Hm... I'm not able to get anything like the results you'
I see these taking 3 or 4 msec each, which is hard to draw conclusions from.
Robby
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> (define data (for/list ([x 10]) x))
>
> (time (begin0 (void) (run2 data)))
> (time (begin0 (void) (run1 data)))
>
> 3 times run1, then 3 times run2, the
Hm... I'm not able to get anything like the results you're reporting.
When I run the enclosed program via `racket` on the command line, I get
cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0
cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0
cpu time: 2 real time: 2 gc time: 0
cpu time: 3 real time: 3 gc time: 0
cpu tim
(define data (for/list ([x 10]) x))
(time (begin0 (void) (run2 data)))
(time (begin0 (void) (run1 data)))
3 times run1, then 3 times run2, then again 3 times run1.
Results are stable.
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:28:10 +0100 от Matthew Flatt :
>I'd expect them to run nearly the same due to inlining
I'd expect them to run nearly the same due to inlining and constant
propagation. If I save your program to "ex.rkt" and use
raco make ex.rkt
raco decompile ex.rkt
the the output looks almost the same for both functions.
There's a lot of allocation in these programs, of course, and that's
going
Yet more strange
(define (run3 data)
(map (test2 #t) data))
runs twice faster. (time ...) gives only 100.
I thought, that (lambda (x) (k x)) and k -- are synonims and optimizer elide
extra lambda.
Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:16:25 +0400 от Roman Klochkov :
>Strange.
>
>#lang racket
>(define (test
Strange.
#lang racket
(define (test1 x y)
(if x
(+ y 1)
(- y 1)))
(define (test2 x)
(if x
(λ (y) (+ y 1))
(λ (y) (- y 1
(define (run1 data)
(map (λ (x) (test1 #t x)) data))
(define (run2 data)
(map (λ (x) ((test2 #t) x)) data)) I expect, that run2 should be faster,
be
31 matches
Mail list logo
