Sam claims that the original split is twice as fast as my re-design.
On May 14, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
And how is the performance after the fix? Is the opaque coding worth
it?
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
On May 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
(define (stress-test split)
(define n 20000)
(define l (build-list n add1))
(define _ (begin (collect-garbage) (collect-garbage)))
(define x
(time
(for/list ((i (in-range n)))
(define-values (x y) (split-at-right l i))
(length y))))
(void))
Sam pointed out my crucial error: when you abstract, use check
syntax. (In
case you can't see it, there's a hard-linked call to split-at-right
not the
parameter split.)_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
--
Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay
"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
