Re: [Factor-talk] Why is an empty paragraph not writable by gadget. ?
Thank you. It works. Am Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:47:28 -0700 schrieb John Benediktsson : > Okay, fixed both those issues: > > https://github.com/slavapestov/factor/commit/e0bcd7423b7968cee3ee975e969f3e0e7b60ea27 > > https://github.com/slavapestov/factor/commit/d5c5a1389d60e9a5981d669c26d958f315039a8e > > Now it works, but working means it doesn't take up any visual space > with no children. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:42 AM, John Benediktsson > wrote: > > > Looks like wrap-words doesn't work with an empty sequence. > > > > And if you "fix" that, paragraphs don't work because they can't > > calculate their dimensions from an empty list of children. > > > > So, perhaps two bugs to fix. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Georg Simon > > wrote: > > > >> IN: scratchpad 500 add-gadget gadget. > >> > >> works ( shows an invisible gadget ). But > >> > >> IN: scratchpad 500 gadget. > >> > >> gives the error "Sequence index out of bounds". > >> > >> Is that a bug or a feature ? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ___ > >> Factor-talk mailing list > >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > >> > > > > -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
[Factor-talk] how to run-pipeline
I want to run binary codes (C++) under linux using run-pipeline
In linux shell, the task is
cmd1 -a arg1 -b arg2 | cmd2 -c arg3
I know in general, in factor, I need to construct
{ str1 str2 } run-pipeline
where str1 = “cmd1 -a arg1 -b arg2”
str2 = “cmd2 -c arg3”
Ultimately, I may also insert some factor quot in betweeen
str1 and str2 to do some processing before handing the
result to cmd2.
Here is what I envision:
TUPLE: cmd1 a b ;
: ( — cmd1 )
cmd1 new
“default a” >>a
“default b” >>b ;
: get-cmd1 ( cmd1 — str1 )
[ a>> ] [ b>> ] bi
“cmd1 -a %s -b %s” sprintf ;
so now, I can write
my_b >>b
get-cmd1
— similarly for cmd2.
But I bump into a mental block when trying to
put things together for run-pipeline
If there were just one cmd1 (without cmd2),
I thought I could do
${ my_b >>b get-cmd1 } run-pipeline
Adding cmd2, I could write
${ my_b >>b get-cmd1 my_c >>c get-cmd2 } run-pipeline
But this looks ugly.
Is there a simpler way ?
Thanks
HP Wei
--
___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] SHA-256
Hello, John!
21.09.2015, 22:23, "John Benediktsson" :
> I don't know what version of Factor you are using, but I made a couple
> improvements improvements to sha checksums over the last year or two.
Right! I keep forgetting that I'm on 0.96, which is wildly out of date,
apparently.
> I can hash a 17 mb file in 4.5 seconds on my laptop:
That sounds quite a bit more reasonable.
> There is still a lot of optimization potential because it doesn't inline
> fixnum arithmetic completely on 64-bit. I was working on it awhile ago and
> didn't quite finish.
I'm on 32 bit for now, so it shouldn't affect me.
> If you really need performance now, here's another way that calls out to
> ``shasum`` and is fast.
>
> : shasum ( path -- checksum )
> absolute-path { "shasum" "-a" "256" } swap suffix
> utf8 [ readln ] with-process-reader " " split1 drop ;
>
> IN: scratchpad [ "~/testfile" shasum ] time
> Running time: 0.206797194 seconds
>
> Hope that helps.
Actually, that helps immensely! Thank you very much!
---=---
Александр
--
___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] SHA-256
I don't know what version of Factor you are using, but I made a couple
improvements improvements to sha checksums over the last year or two.
I can hash a 17 mb file in 4.5 seconds on my laptop:
IN: scratchpad "~/testfile" file-info size>> .
17825792
IN: scratchpad gc [ "~/testfile" sha-256 checksum-file ] time
Running time: 4.533698574 seconds
There is still a lot of optimization potential because it doesn't inline
fixnum arithmetic completely on 64-bit. I was working on it awhile ago and
didn't quite finish.
If you really need performance now, here's another way that calls out to
``shasum`` and is fast.
: shasum ( path -- checksum )
absolute-path { "shasum" "-a" "256" } swap suffix
utf8 [ readln ] with-process-reader " " split1 drop ;
IN: scratchpad [ "~/testfile" shasum ] time
Running time: 0.206797194 seconds
Hope that helps.
Best,
John.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Alexander Ilin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I just found out that calculation of SHA-256 checksum for a 17 Mb file
> takes about 200 seconds!
> Does anyone have an idea how to improve that figure by at least two
> orders of magnitude?
> sha256sum.exe does same in under 1 second.
>
> ---=---
> Александр
>
>
> --
> ___
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
--
___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
[Factor-talk] SHA-256
Hello! I just found out that calculation of SHA-256 checksum for a 17 Mb file takes about 200 seconds! Does anyone have an idea how to improve that figure by at least two orders of magnitude? sha256sum.exe does same in under 1 second. ---=--- Александр -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] stream-read
Great, thank you! 21.09.2015, 19:23, "John Benediktsson" : > You can just use read (or stream-read) which returns less bytes if the file > is smaller: > > http://docs.factorcode.org/content/word-read,io.html > > So this does what you want: > > "/path/to/file" utf8 [ 1024 read ] with-file-reader > > The stream-read-partial is used for some performance improvements in slurping > a whole file in chunks via each-stream-block. > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Alexander Ilin wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I need to read a head of a file (name provided) up to 1024 bytes (return >> shorter string if the file size is less than 1024). I will then hash the >> read data. >> >> I'd like to understand the difference between stream-read and >> stream-read-partial. Which one should I use for my task? Is the difference >> in the blocking behaviour? >> >> ---=--- >> Александр >> >> -- >> ___ >> Factor-talk mailing list >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > , > > -- > , > > ___ > Factor-talk mailing list > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk ---=--- Александр -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] stream-read
You can just use read (or stream-read) which returns less bytes if the file is smaller: http://docs.factorcode.org/content/word-read,io.html So this does what you want: "/path/to/file" utf8 [ 1024 read ] with-file-reader The stream-read-partial is used for some performance improvements in slurping a whole file in chunks via each-stream-block. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Alexander Ilin wrote: > Hello! > > I need to read a head of a file (name provided) up to 1024 bytes (return > shorter string if the file size is less than 1024). I will then hash the > read data. > > I'd like to understand the difference between stream-read and > stream-read-partial. Which one should I use for my task? Is the difference > in the blocking behaviour? > > ---=--- > Александр > > > -- > ___ > Factor-talk mailing list > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
[Factor-talk] stream-read
Hello! I need to read a head of a file (name provided) up to 1024 bytes (return shorter string if the file size is less than 1024). I will then hash the read data. I'd like to understand the difference between stream-read and stream-read-partial. Which one should I use for my task? Is the difference in the blocking behaviour? ---=--- Александр -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] Chris Double's Weblog
Hello, Chris! 21.09.2015, 15:52, "Chris Double" : > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Ilin wrote: >> I noticed your weblog is down. Are you going to bring it up, or is it >> dead permanently? > > It's up for me: http://bluishcoder.co.nz > > What error are you getting? > > All the factor articles are back online now too. It up now for me, too. For a few days I've seen only some boilerplate about nginx. ---=--- Александр -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] Chris Double's Weblog
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Ilin wrote: > > I noticed your weblog is down. Are you going to bring it up, or is it dead > permanently? It's up for me: http://bluishcoder.co.nz What error are you getting? All the factor articles are back online now too. -- http://bluishcoder.co.nz -- ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
