On 07/11/2014 19:51, Geoffrey S. Knauth wrote:
I visited HackerNews [1]. Unfortunately it was down, but you can following
@HNStatus on Twitter. In that feed, I saw:
IIRC it's written in ARC, which is implemented in Racket.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(programming_language)
_
Hi all,
according to the documentation, the above procedure accepts a *number*
and returns an integer.
But (at least in Racket 6.1) there's an error message stating that the
parameter needs to be an *integer*:
---
> (integer-sqrt 151.29)
integer-sqrt:
On 05/04/2014 00:08, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
I copied Common Lisp's model, but it's a good idea to add Racket-style
contracts. It should be a matter of simply adding a matcher for this.
I've pushed a quick fix. Your code becomes:
(def-multi P contract-match-parms)
(add-
On 04/04/2014 23:48, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
(def-multi +)
(add-multi + '() (lambda () 0))
(add-multi + (listof number?) (lambda args (apply + args)))
(add-multi + (listof vector?) (lambda args (apply v+ args)))
(check-equal? (+ 1 2 3) 6)
(check-equal? (+ (vector 1 2 3)
(vec
On 02/04/2014 20:48, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
I can share it if you're interested, it's roughly 40 lines of code.
Here's the link: https://github.com/uselpa/def-multi
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
On 02/04/2014 20:53, Alejandro Zamora Fonseca wrote:
(defmethod dup ((a string))
(concatenate 'string a a))
(defmethod dup ((a integer))
(list a a))
1) From the standard Racket "swindle/tiny-clos" library, you can use the
CLOS-like functions that you may already know from Common
On 29/03/2014 03:54, Yuhao Dong wrote:
Using accumulator+reverse won't really improve the runtime at all.
Every other benchmark has (unfortunately) shown the opposite.
I think that tail recursion doesn't help at all, and introduces
conceptual overhead. Racket doesn't use the stack, and conver
Greetings everybody,
Let's assume we want a procedure that doubles every even? number of a list.
The recursive way would be something like:
(require rackunit)
(define parms '(1 2 3 4 5))
(define result '(4 8))
(define (f-recursive lst)
(if (null? lst)
null
(let ((c (car lst)))
Hello
I was looking for a CLOS(-like) implementation in Scheme and found that
there is one which is already included in Racket. Before investing some
time into studying this, I have 2 questions:
1) Given that the Swindle docs lack some polish in comparison with the
rest of the modules, are t
Hi
I can't find a way to have a per-field default value in a struct, such
as in Common Lisp:
? (defstruct person (name "James" :type string) (age 1 :type number))
PERSON
? (defparameter p (make-person))
P
? p
#S(PERSON :NAME "James" :AGE 1)
? (defparameter p (make-person :name "Paul"))
P
? p
#
Nice idea ;-)
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
On 10/02/2013 18:34, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
more). While Racket obviously inherits many traits from Scheme and while
we are obviously grateful to the Scheme branch of the family for its
inspiration, Racket is NOT Scheme and we will continue to develop the
language as we see fit.
I'm happy t
On 07/11/2012 23:16, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Racket version 5.3.1 is now available from
http://racket-lang.org/
Thanks for this nice release. I noticed a 20% speed increase on one of
my programs, and I absolutely *love* the line indicator triangle in
DrRacket!
-pu
Rack
On 05/11/2012 19:14, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
A follow-up blog post detailing what's improved performance-wise would
be great.
Indeed, speed is an important point for many people choosing a PL
implementation. And it's becoming even more important with ubiquitous
virtualisation and energy conside
FWIW,
1) the timings with the 32 bit version of Racket 5.3 (the other timings
were from the 64 bit version)
fibo-clos : cpu time: 12529 real time: 12720 gc time: 850
fibo-gen1 : cpu time: 21003 real time: 22319 gc time: 1808
fibo-gen2 : cpu time: 20527 real time: 20929 gc time: 1795
fibo-delay
On 08/10/2012 01:23, Danny Yoo wrote:
Hmmm! Looking at it now... Wait: your definition of fibo-gen2 is not
exactly equivalent to the others in terms of work when verbose is off.
Good spot! It's consistent now. Generators and delay/force are roughly
the same speed (although the latter explod
Hi,
following up on my earlier thread (sep 16th) on the same subject, I
tried to compare some solutions generating fibonacci series in a lazy
way: via a closure, via generators and using delay/force.
The results are correct for all methods:
fibo-clos : 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 37
On 18/09/2012 00:24, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Which makes me wonder if continuations are really usable in Racket (in terms of
performance)?
That is a good question, and the answer is 'yes, in the right situation'. I
think
On 16/09/2012 15:34, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
1. Use statistical profiler to see who is actually eating the time:
http://doc.racket-lang.org/profile/index.html Increasing the sampling
resolution can help.
This is what I get - only quoting the highest self pct:
Profiling results
-
Hello
I have a Python program doing some intensive computing and would like to
port it to Racket for performance reasons.
I use a generator in Python which has a very low overhead. While writing
some test programs, I seem to have an substantial overhead on using
generators in Racket:
Callb
20 matches
Mail list logo
