On 9/5/13 10:42 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
Neil Toronto writes:
> FWIW, `vector->immutable-vector' is pretty fast. It's usually the least
> significant part of an O(n) operation. Its two biggest problems are that
> it allocates memory and annoys people.
That's a good summary of my first impressions ;-)
> If you're working in Typed Racket, you might consider using the
> `math/array' library. It provides multidimensional arrays with O(1)
It's on my radar for when I move on to exploring Typed Racket. The
concept looks very interesting, with many idea's from Haskell's REPA,
except that it's in a language I can actually use to do something
useful.
> to do something similar: have library functions operate on mutable
> vectors, with user-facing functions accepting and receiving immutable
> vectors, or some more abstract wrapper data type. The `math/matrix'
That's certainly doable, but it looks like a lot of overhead for using
a very basic data structure.
Scott Klarenbach writes:
> Check out some of the functional data structures found here:
>
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/sfp10-kth.pdf
>
> VLists may be of particular interest in your case.
That's the stuff in the pfds package, right?
https://pkg.racket-lang.org/info/pfds
Interesting indeed, makes me think of Clojure vectors. And written to
be used as a drop-in replacement for lists. I'll play with that as
well!
The implementation is in Typed Racket as well, so should I expect the
same performance problems as with arrays when I work in plain Racket?
Thee is also this:
https://pkg.racket-lang.org/info/ralist
Which is not written in typed racket and has an un-contracted form for
efficiency.
David
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
