At Mon, 4 Aug 2014 00:52:56 -0300, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> What I'm sensing is that you seem to be concerned about bugs with
> Racket Scheme's EVAL. Is that it?
> I do not understand what the problem with EVAL is. Would you please
> state clearly what the problems are?
While he didn't say so explicit
Thank you! Now it's rather clear for me.
Mon, 4 Aug 2014 06:47:34 +0100 от Matthew Flatt :
>Well... a function call is expensive relative to some things, such as
>adding fixnums to produce a fixnum.
>
>
>My read of your initial results is that calling an unknown function is
>similar to the cost
Henry Lenzi wrote at 08/03/2014 11:52 PM:
What I'm sensing is that you seem to be concerned about bugs with
Racket Scheme's EVAL. Is that it?
I do not understand what the problem with EVAL is. Would you please
state clearly what the problems are?
Eval is one of the issues. Sorry I have to be v
At Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:12:50 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> Here we have a thread per every module, that use such approach. It is
> better,than a thread per object, but ...
> How many such threads can Racket run without performance degrading?
Many thousands.
Each thread costs about 15 kilobytes
Well... a function call is expensive relative to some things, such as
adding fixnums to produce a fixnum.
My read of your initial results is that calling an unknown function is
similar to the cost of one iteration in a loop that sets a character in
a string.
More precisely, decompiling the progr
Hello Alex --
This is nice, the problem is separating the output into the proper
formatting. I feel this has to be done a step before the expansion
into the string form.
One thing I'm considering is that that the DSL is made of MED QUANT
FORM POS or MED QUANT FOR POS INST, so 4 or 5 items.
If we h
Would this work for what you want?
If med.rkt contains this:
#lang racket
(provide (all-defined-out)
#%datum #%top
(rename-out [new-module-begin #%module-begin]))
(define-syntax-rule
(new-module-begin med-thing ...)
(#%module-begin (display (~a med-thing ... #:separator " "
I would just like to add that this is only something very embrionary.
There are a myriad ways to validate the user syntax when he/she
provides input.
We're just not there yet! ;-)
Cheers,
-- Henry
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> Hello Neil -
>
> First of all, I am not atte
Hello Neil -
First of all, I am not attempting tricks. I am doing the best I can,
the way I know how to (I will take the "clever" part as a compliment,
however). I have a few rational requirements, which I have explained.
Foremost among them is code simplicity. I saw no need so far for
parsers or
> unknown function call is expensive
So, higher order function always slow.
Thus, to improve performance, one should use for/fold, for/list, ... and never
use map, foldl, build-string, ... with lambda.
Is it correct?
Sun, 3 Aug 2014 13:15:57 -0400 от Matthias Felleisen :
>
>Because build-strin
I can see how someone might want to do tricks like this, to use the REPL
as user interface, for tinkering, and that could be very interesting or
clever.
However, just to be clear to students and professionals who might
stumble upon this thread... If I were actually doing this in production
fo
After some reflection, here is how I think you should proceed:
#lang typed/racket
(: 1+ (Nonnegative-Integer -> Positive-Integer))
(define (1+ n)
(+ n 1))
;; entirely unnecessary but helped me read
(define-type (Maybe α) (U False α))
(define-type NI Nonnegative-Integer)
(define-type LNI (Li
Oh, OK. :-)
-- Henry
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
>
>> Alexander's idea is interesting, but it onlt works if the
>> prescription file is not numbered (which is actually more natural),
>> such as if it were:
>> hctz
On Aug 3, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> Alexander's idea is interesting, but it onlt works if the
> prescription file is not numbered (which is actually more natural),
> such as if it were:
> hctz25 30 pl 1xd
> simva20 30 pl 1xn
>
>> (define in2 (open-input-file "Recipe3.txt"))
>> (por
In a sense, you put your finger on a sore spot of TR from R -- we are still
figuring out how to help programmers along here. I rewrote your program like
this:
#lang typed/racket
(: 1+ (Nonnegative-Integer -> Positive-Integer))
(define (1+ n)
(+ n 1))
;; entirely unnecessary but helped me r
This is why I tried a delta-introducer on between orig-stx (the syntax-time
parameter in match) and mstx (in the application of the transformer), but even
though the documentation for make-syntax-delta-introducer says it can take two
arbitrary pieces of syntax to make an introducer, it barfs on
Alexander's idea is interesting, but it onlt works if the
prescription file is not numbered (which is actually more natural),
such as if it were:
hctz25 30 pl 1xd
simva20 30 pl 1xn
> (define in2 (open-input-file "Recipe3.txt"))
> (port->list (compose1 eval read) in2)
'("Hydrochlorothiazide 25mg"
On Aug 3, 2014, at 6:29 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> If I (define i->c integer->char), and use it in your test1, it becomes the
> slowest.
> That might mean that the "unknown function" response from Dr F applies to
> your function, too.
> In other words, I think this is another example of drawing
I just thought: I could do syntax-local-introduce on the pattern before it
gets passed to parse-id, and then do syntax-local-introduce on the bound-vars
of that, except that it still doesn’t work.
Well, I’m probably still missing the syntax-mark of the match*/derived form.
Although I could wr
Greetings.
Short version: I repeatedly find myself adding TR type annotations by
trial-and-error -- I'm sure I'm missing something.
I had a particularly acute case of this this afternoon. I have a bit of
typed/racket/base code as follows:
(: 1+ (Nonnegative-Integer -> Positive-Integer))
(def
If I (define i->c integer->char), and use it in your test1, it becomes the
slowest.
That might mean that the "unknown function" response from Dr F applies to your
function, too.
In other words, I think this is another example of drawing ambiguous
conclusions from tests that are too simple.
I gav
It seems to me that Igor Rivin's major flaw in thinking shows up on page 1 as a
section title. In "The Consumer" the opinion piece makes the common mistake to
introduce the undergraduate student as a consumer. He is not. The undergraduate
student is the product that we, the professors, consume
On Aug 3, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
>
>> ; Hello all --
>> ; So here's how I solve all those little problems regarding symbols
>> and evaluation of medication definitions.
>> ; Would you please bear with me? I apologize for
Alexander --
Thanks. But what would "thing" be?
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
>
>> ; Hello all --
>> ; So here's how I solve all those little problems regarding symbols
>> and evaluation of medication definitions.
>
On Aug 3, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> ; Hello all --
> ; So here's how I solve all those little problems regarding symbols
> and evaluation of medication definitions.
> ; Would you please bear with me? I apologize for the length.
> ; This is the approach I've taken. I've chosen no to
The difference is that every time that (list 1 2 3) is executed, you
get a new different list. But with each '(1 2 3) you get every time
the same list. The '(1 2 3) is referenced from the "source code" so it
will not be collected. (A different copy of '(1 2 3) creates a
different list, but always t
It's best if I use pasteracket ("Hank's medication thingy")
http://pasterack.org/pastes/14535
-- Henry Lenzi
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> Uh oh, the GOOG botched formatting. Sorry about that!
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
>> ; Hello all --
>> ;
Uh oh, the GOOG botched formatting. Sorry about that!
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Henry Lenzi wrote:
> ; Hello all --
> ; So here's how I solve all those little problems regarding symbols
> and evaluation of medication definitions.
> ; Would you please bear with me? I apologize for the length
; Hello all --
; So here's how I solve all those little problems regarding symbols
and evaluation of medication definitions.
; Would you please bear with me? I apologize for the length.
; This is the approach I've taken. I've chosen no to use any macrology
or parser/lexer technique because I don't
Oh.
I have no idea what to do then. I can’t even do syntax-local-introduce or
(datum->syntax stx (syntax->datum stx)) on it because it’s not a syntax object.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:59 PM, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
> This is the problem of not introducing the right marks. He wants
> (define-val
This is the problem of not introducing the right marks. He wants
(define-values (x) (match blah [x x]))
but is getting
(define-values (x) (match blah [x-barf x]))
Just pre-parsing won't get you all the way. You need to have a way to introduce
to x-barf the marks between the outer match-define a
But it was doing that already with no problem. All I _changed_ was that I
added a syntax-property to pat so that it didn’t have to parse it more than
once.
Why would it work before but not with the syntax-property?
On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> From where I si
From where I sit your syntactic abstraction generates code of this shape:
---> (define-values vars (match*/derived (rhs) #,stx [(pat) (values . vars ;;
<
This introduces vars ___and___ uses them before the right-hand side is
evaluated.
-- Matthias
On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Alexan
But I never defined or used those variables.
All I did was save the parsed pattern in a syntax-property and have the parse
function look at that syntax-property.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> That means you are defining and using recursive variables before the
That means you are defining and using recursive variables before the
initialization is done.
On Aug 3, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
> I tried it but got weird errors like this:
> idle-rest: undefined;
> cannot use before initialization
> And this:
> wrkr: undefined;
> cannot
I tried it but got weird errors like this:
idle-rest: undefined;
cannot use before initialization
And this:
wrkr: undefined;
cannot use before initialization
https://github.com/AlexKnauth/racket/compare/match-define-save-parsed-pattern
On Aug 3, 2014, at 12:32 PM, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
> Try i
Thanks for pointing it out. Since the person is possibly still at Brown, I may
try to contact him and see whether there is common ground. Much appreciated --
Matthias
On Aug 3, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> Many people on this list think deeply about pedagogy; perhaps the follow
Because build-string calls an unknown function 1000 x 10 times, and an
unknown function call is expensive.
Racket could possible collapse all modules and perform additional in-lining
optimizations eventually, which may help here. But it doesn't yet.
-- Matthias
On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:15
Try it and report back.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander D. Knauth"
To: "J. Ian Johnson"
Cc: "racket users list"
Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2014 12:22:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket] getting one macro to tell another macro to define
something
What if ma
Many people on this list think deeply about pedagogy; perhaps the following
article published in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, which
advocates teaching logical thinking via Scheme programming before advancing to
the usual university mathematics curriculum (calculus, etc.), ma
What if match-define did something like this to store the parsed pat in a
syntax-property?:
(define-syntax (match-define stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_ pat rhs:expr)
(let ([p (parse-id #'pat)])
(with-syntax ([pat (syntax-property #'pat 'parsed-pat p)]
Are higher order function always slow?
Made small test:
test1 -- unfamous set-in-the-loop accumulating
test2 -- built-in build-string
test3 -- manually written build-string with the same code as in test1
(define (test1 n)
(define res (make-string n))
(for ([i (in-range n)])
(stri
42 matches
Mail list logo
