Ever? Or for the purpose discussed earlier?
On Sep 9, 2013 7:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I wonder whether you really want lazy streams. -- Matthias
On Sep 9, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Lawrence Woodman wrote:
On 09/09/13 07:19, Stephen Chang wrote:
Konrad's exactly
Sounds like Racket is using a deep binding strategy rather than shallow
binding. I expect that SBCL uses shallow.
On Aug 16, 2013 5:10 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:59:55 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote:
I compared parameterize with lexical var
that has to
be searched to find a parameter value.
At Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:23:52 -0700, Joe Marshall wrote:
Sounds like Racket is using a deep binding strategy rather than
shallow
binding. I expect that SBCL uses shallow.
On Aug 16, 2013 5:10 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote
On Jul 22, 2013 7:24 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a bit of a shame they [monads] don't come up in Racket much,
Not really. They're overrated.
If you try doing effectful computation in Haskell, though, you'll be
begging for something like monads within an hour. If you
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:
Can anyone illustrate how that solution would work in Ben's example here?
The basic gist of it is that instead of manipulating the-data, we
manipulate
functions. So the inner functions f2, f3, ... will change from
You could also hide the data with a monad.
On Jul 19, 2013 9:35 AM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
One common solution to this issue is a parameter:
(define current-data (make-parameter #f))
(define (f1 the-data ...)
(parameterize ([current-data the-data])
(f2 ...)))
(define
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I have only done system programming in assembly and C, and found that I
frequently did a lot of manual placement and shuffling of data in memory,
with the usual pointer tricks.
Off the top of my head, I do
I don't object to the silliness, I object to it being called a measure!
The number that shows up on the search results page is a pure
guess made by a part of the system that doesn't have access to
the actual index. Really, Google Trends is a much better tool.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5731
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it -- Santayana
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Hugh Aguilar hughaguila...@yahoo.comwrote:
This Supercomputer Toolkit looks pretty cool! I skimmed over the
article, and will read it completely later on. Am I understanding that
this uses integer arithmetic?
No, the Digital Orrery used floating point.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov dpav...@ipa.nw.ru wrote:
In hindsight, the use of quad precision appears to have been overly
conservative for this problem
Might be, and may still be, but the precision of astronomical
observation has grown much since the time the paper was
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Hugh Aguilar hughaguila...@yahoo.comwrote:
We are doing numerical integration of celestial bodies over large
periods of time (100 years is a norm).
I'm new to Scheme, so I may be totally wrong about this --- but, isn't a
numerical program like this exactly
A Scheme procedure might return a value, or it might delegate to another
procedure (via tail recursion). This is a key point: languages without
tail recursion cannot delegate to another procedure. They can do a limited
simulation of delegation by chaining the returns, but this adds an O(n)
space
returns, if you don't mind if Ellen and I cringe. We'll know
what you mean.)
rac
On Sep 8, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Joe Marshall wrote:
A Scheme procedure might return a value, or it might delegate to another
procedure (via tail recursion). This is a key point: languages without
tail recursion cannot
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
Many people have better things to do than worry about our rank in the TIOBE
programming languages index.
The `number of results' printed for a Google query is an extraordinarily poor
approximation (it is not much
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Dan Grossman d...@cs.washington.edu wrote:
Very minor point, but is there a rationale beyond historical precedent
for + and * to allow any number of arguments but, =, =, , , = to
require at least two arguments?
0 is the additive identity. 1 is the
To John:
The original poster was asking why the comparison operators do not generalize
downward to 1-ary and 0-ary versions. Upward generalization works.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Arthur Nunes-Harwitt a...@cs.rit.edu wrote:
Hi,
That's the wrong question.
Well, sort of.
Recall
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Joe Marshall picked the wrong way to generalize = is not a reason,
historical or otherwise, for = not being generalized to 0 or 1
arguments.
Certainly not, but it carries the same weight as Carl Eastlund claims Joe's
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Bloch bl...@adelphi.edu wrote:
Since there is in fact a well-defined and useful meaning for (= a b c d e),
to wit all the numbers a, b, c, d, and e are equal, and a well-defined and
useful meaning for (= a b c d e), to wit the sequence a, b, c, d, e
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Stephen Bloch sbl...@adelphi.edu wrote:
OK, here's a variant of binary-nary that produces the results we want when
op has contract X X - boolean rather than X X - X
(define (binary-nary relop)
(letrec ((f (lambda args
(or (empty? args)
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
You seem to be assuming that we have to pick one binary-nary for all
binary operators.
That is the nature of `generalization'. If I have to discriminate, it isn't
general.
I would choose this one for relations and the
It used to be that the DLL was expected to be stored in the
collects/mysterx subdirectory somewhere. If you look there,
you might find the existing DLL. Simply replace it with your new one.
2011/2/26 José Lopes jose.lo...@ist.utl.pt:
Hello,
I want to make changes in MysterX and execute
2011/2/24 José António jose.lo...@ist.utl.pt:
And how do I perform a blind call?
It's been more than five years since I've worked with MysterX,
so my memory is rusty.
The source is in racket/src/mysterx/mysterx.cc
The relevant method is mx_make_call
It looks like if there is no pTypeDesc for
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
Yeah, floating point is approximate.
To be very precise and pedantic, floating point consists of two things:
1. A selected set of rational numbers along with an associated
representation.
2. A variety of
MysterX will allow you to make a COM call without type information,
but it cannot validate the argument list. If you *know* the type info,
you can make a `blind call' where you simply push the args on the
stack, jump to the entry point, and pray that the callee is expecting
those kind of
2011/2/13 José Lopes jose.lo...@ist.utl.pt:
I understand. However, not only that disregards type promotion but also is
incoherent since (+ 0 0.0) evaluates to 0.0.
Worse:
(min 0 1e100) = 0.0
--
~jrm
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
My point was that inexactness leads to a lot of nasty incoherence.
But in the spirit of asking naive questions...
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
No, it's not a bug. Since 1e100 is an inexact number, there's
uncertainty about the minimum of those
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
No, it's not a bug. Since 1e100 is an inexact number, there's
uncertainty about the minimum of those two numbers,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
So could
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:49 AM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
Hang on... you're still using the term hygienic in the non-Felleisen way.
That is, if we accept that a hygienic system is one that has well-defined
behavior but where you can bind new names when you explicitly
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Don Blaheta dblah...@monm.edu wrote:
To turn it around, if I hand you a compositional expression, I also hand
you the syntax rule and the values of all evaluable sub-expressions,
then you can 100% reliably hand back the value of the overall
expression, and
Racket is call-by-value. Period. Always. -- Matthias
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu
wrote:
There is a variation on what Matthias said, which is when you need a
shared structure whose value changes but whose representation may
contain immutable
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Danny Yoo d...@cs.wpi.edu wrote:
I'm trying to compare two paths for equality; I misread normalize-path
and didn't realize that it does not do case folding, so that on
Windows,
(equal? (build-path C:\\)
(build-path c:\\))
returns false.
Wow! There is a lot of confusion on this list by people who know better.
Mathew Kurian
As long as the processor can only read only numbers (binary), Racket
cannot be interpreted by the machine before being translated into
another language such as Assembly.
John Clements
There is a
Here's a fast way to get the leftmost digit of a number:
(defun leftmost-digit (n base)
(do* ((i 1 next)
(next base (* i base)))
(( next n) (floor n i
(This is in Common Lisp. DO* is to DO as LET* is to LET. Floor takes two
integer arguments and returns the floor of the
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Justin Zamora jus...@zamora.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Here's a fast way to get the leftmost digit of a number:
...
This version is slightly slower for small numbers, but much much better
for large
Here's an interesting data point.
(define (first-digit-fast-1 n)
(if ( 10 n)
n
(let loop ((i 10)
(next 100))
(if ( next n)
(first-digit-fast (floor (/ n i)))
(loop next (* i i))
This takes about 13 seconds on my work machine.
If I take
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Richard Cleis rcl...@mac.com wrote:
Can you explain 'script' ?
Nope.
But a couple of years back we were debating the definition of a
`light-weight language'.
I think the best answer to that was ``any language where you don't need
a Makefile'' (or `Ant', or an
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, YC yinso.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
I have a rather curious question - is it possible to write a garbage
collector in a pointerless language such as racket/scheme?
It is possible if the system provides a good API to the underlying
memory architecture. The
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Mike Gallo,,, mi...@psg.com wrote:
What is the likelihood that the address will be put on-line?
Here you go:
308B, West Village H (Building 23H)
Matthias Felleisen
Trustee Professor
College of Computer Science
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Patrick Li patrickli.2...@gmail.com wrote:
So this seems rather positive. Through some clever search algorithms, or
heuristics, we can have a infinite-loop checker that works well enough in
practice.
Um, no. You have to restrict the problem space, too.
For
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Tim Brown tim.br...@cityc.co.uk wrote:
Is there a standard name for the (lambda (x) (x)) in racket?
In Common Lisp, the standard name for this is `funcall'
--
~jrm
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Stephen Bloch sbl...@adelphi.edu wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
The #i indicates inexactness as far as computer arithmetic is concerned,
that is, what the so-called 'machine' level arithmetic supplies.
And yet Scheme/Racket
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Prabhakar Ragde plra...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Inexact in Racket is code for IEEE double-precision floating point.
And for a particular, somewhat idiosyncratic `contagion' policy.
As Noel pointed out, the reason that we have floating-point is for speed.
(Well, also
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Horace Dynamite
horace.dynam...@gmail.com wrote:
Would this be considered bad practise by professionals
not protecting their system against this?
Absolutely. It is pathetic.
--
~jrm
_
For list-related
It seems to me that the Haskell version is better.
The arguments to foldl are these: (procedure accumulator list1 list2 ...)
so it makes sense that the call to procedure take the arguments
in the same order. That is, you end up calling
(procedure accumulator (car list1) (car list2) ...)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle
stephen.degabrie...@acm.org wrote:
I'm guessing there is a XML sitemap registered with
google/bing/yahoo?
On Jul 1, Joe Marshall wrote:
No. There should be.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle
stephen.degabrie...@acm.org wrote:
I'm guessing there is a XML sitemap registered with google/bing/yahoo?
No. There should be.
--
~jrm
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
Someone who really wants to do this optimally will have to look up the
latest SEO rules of thumb for what to do and not do on this page.
It'll take a small amount of time investment (perhaps ten total hours), but
you
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:50 PM, David Van Horn dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I think a lot of people on the list would be interested if you can sketch
what's involved here.
It's all spelled out on http://www.google.com/webmasters/
--
~jrm
_
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Compilers can't easily see through a Y combinator, and a factor of 8 or
so difference is probably typical for Lisp compilers. (I tried Ikarus
and Gambit to double check, and performance was about the same as with
50 matches
Mail list logo
