On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I assume you mean the context
(define number?
(let ((old number?))
(lambda (any)
(displayln `(I am testing ,any))
(old any))))
> This expression:
>
> (match x
> [`(lambda (,x) ,e) ...]
> [(? number?) ...]
> [`(,e1 ,e2) ...])
>
>
> has, by my count, 7 opportunities to do things in different orders (6
> cons cells can be matched car-position first or cdr-position first and
> the order of which clause to try first can be moved around in at least
> one way) and at least one of them seems profitable (merging the cons?
> test from the first and second lines). I'd have to try some timings
> and get more careful to say if that one is actually profitable or if
> there are others but it is, in my mind, definitely at the "worth
> trying" level, especially because there has been published work that
> gets a 30% speedup on match-intensive things.
>
> I think that the restriction I suggest above will rule out only (what
> I would consider) strange match expressions, in practice. At least
> based on my experience.
But yes, even w/ my redefinition you get some freedom.
What I meant was: for the original example (Jay's), you'd get L2R.
> In my mind, a more difficult question is just how much speed we're getting.
Speed is a dangerous game.
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
