I don’t know… that was the behaviour I had yesterday, but on the laptop where I
was doing the experiments I updated R from 3.2 to 3.3 earlier today and now the
original make_thunk
make_thunk <- function(f, …) function() f(…)
also works for me.
I don’t know what else I can say to that :)
Cheer
On 10/08/2016 1:28 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 10/08/2016 1:10 PM, Thomas Mailund wrote:
That did the trick!
I was so focused on not evaluating the continuation that I completely forgot
that the thunk could hold an unevaluated value… now it seems to be working for
all the various implementat
Yes, I am aware of this situation and I agree that it is better to force f. I
was simply trying to figure out why it was necessary in this particular program
where the only repeated assignment anywhere in the code is in trampoline, in a
scope none of the thunks can see.
What ever my problem was
On 10/08/2016 2:39 PM, Thomas Mailund wrote:
Ok, I think maybe I am beginning to see what is going wrong...
Explicitly remembering the thunk parameters in a list works fine, as far as I
can see.
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) {
remembered <- list(...)
function(...) do.call(f, as.list(reme
Ok, I think maybe I am beginning to see what is going wrong...
Explicitly remembering the thunk parameters in a list works fine, as far as I
can see.
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) {
remembered <- list(...)
function(...) do.call(f, as.list(remembered))
}
thunk_factorial <- function(n, con
Well, they stay at 3 when I call cat (except for the final step going down in
they recursion where `identity` is called, where they are 4). They do that both
when I evaluate ... in the `make_thunk` function and when I don’t. But then,
when I call `cat` it also worked before. I cannot keep `cat
You may gain some understanding of what is going on by adding
the output of sys.nframe() or length(sys.calls()) to the cat() statement.
Bill Dunlap
TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Mailund wrote:
> An alternative implementation, closer to what I need when
I am not sure I can see exactly how the parameters are changing at all,
regardless of which of the versions I am using. Nowhere in the code do I ever
modify assign to a variable (except for defining the global-level functions).
I think my problem is that I don’t really understand ... here.
I
On 10/08/2016 1:10 PM, Thomas Mailund wrote:
That did the trick!
I was so focused on not evaluating the continuation that I completely forgot
that the thunk could hold an unevaluated value… now it seems to be working for
all the various implementations I have been playing around with.
I think
On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:15, Bert Gunter
mailto:bgunter.4...@gmail.com>> wrote:
make_thunk is probably unnecessary and apparently problematic. I think
you could use do.call() instead, as do.call(f,list(...)) .
Yes,
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) function() do.call(f, list(...))
also works as f
But wait, how is it actually changing? And how did calling `cat` make the
problem go away?
Ok, I will go think about it…
Thanks anyway, it seems to do the trick.
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:10, Thomas Mailund wrote:
>
>
> That did the trick!
>
> I was so focused on not evaluating the continu
make_thunk is probably unnecessary and apparently problematic. I think
you could use do.call() instead, as do.call(f,list(...)) .
-- Bert
Bert Gunter
"The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along
and sticking things into it."
-- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Blo
That did the trick!
I was so focused on not evaluating the continuation that I completely forgot
that the thunk could hold an unevaluated value… now it seems to be working for
all the various implementations I have been playing around with.
I think I still need to wrap my head around *why* th
On 10/08/2016 12:53 PM, Thomas Mailund wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 13:56, Thomas Mailund wrote:
>
> make_thunk <- function(f, ...) f(...)
Doh! It is of course this one:
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) function() f(…)
It just binds a function call into a thunk so I can delay its evaluation.
An alternative implementation, closer to what I need when I have more than one
recursion in each step, but still using factorial as the example, is this one:
thunk_factorial <- function(n, continuation = identity) {
force(continuation) # if I remove this line I get an error
cat("call: ", n, "
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 13:56, Thomas Mailund wrote:
>
> make_thunk <- function(f, ...) f(...)
Doh! It is of course this one:
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) function() f(…)
It just binds a function call into a thunk so I can delay its evaluation.
Sorry
Thomas
_
Oh, I see that the make_thunk function is missing in my example. It is just
this one
make_thunk <- function(f, ...) f(...)
On 9 August 2016 at 21:57:05, Thomas Mailund
(mail...@birc.au.dk(mailto:mail...@birc.au.dk)) wrote:
> [I’m really sorry if you receive this mail twice. I just notice
[I’m really sorry if you receive this mail twice. I just noticed I had sent it
from a different account that the one I signed up to the mailing list on and I
don’t know if that means it will be filtered; at least I haven’t received it
myself yet.]
I am playing around with continuation-passing
18 matches
Mail list logo
