Ok. To reproduce the results I have to use:
(define char (integer->char 37932))
Thank to both.
Gustavo
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> That still seems consistent with Alex's explanation. To test Alex's
> explanation, I think you need a hash table with a key whose has
That still seems consistent with Alex's explanation. To test Alex's
explanation, I think you need a hash table with a key whose hash code
matches the one for the value you check, but where the key is not equal
that value.
Here's a variant of your code with a `bignum` and `char` that have the
same
I think it's something more subtle. With this definitions:
(define long-assoc (for/list ([i (in-range 64 (+ 64 1024))])
(cons i #t)))
(define hash0 (make-immutable-hash (cons '(0 . #t) long-assoc)))
(define hash1 (make-immutable-hash (cons '(1 . #t) long-assoc)))
With 5 r
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:09:21 AM UTC+8, gustavo wrote:
> I have these strange times in a microbenchmark that compares the time
> to run hash-ref when the key is in the hash and when it is not there:
>
> ;---
> #lang racket/base
> (define hash0 #hash((0 . #t)))
> (define hash1 #hash((1 . #
4 matches
Mail list logo
