At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:26:26 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > But in the TR case the transformation seems fine because > `filter-equal?' is defined as a simple > > (define (filter-equal? a b) (= (Rep-seq a) (Rep-seq b))) > > Sam/Vincent: that's probably a good thing to do, and even better -- > get rid of `filter-equal?' so it's easier to use the seq directly. > (IIUC, it's the thing that has efficiency as its whole point.) A > quick grep finds this loop: > > (for/or ([f (in-list result)]) (or (filter-equal? f t) (implied-atomic? t > f))) > > which could also be improved if the -seq of `t' is taken only once.
Fixed. Thanks. I'll push that later. Vincent _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
