On Jun 18, 2014, at 16:01, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Sorry-- I certainly don't dispute any of your comments on the relative > merit of the code. I was just trying to understand which parts of the > function touch bad performance in Racket. It was certainly not taken that way and I'm sorry if my response led you to think I took it that way. I'm just learning the Racket Way™ and keep stumbling when a seemingly "obvious" "functional" way that I would do something isn't the right way (or even good way) in racket. I hope that my comments get taken as constructive criticism and possible avenues for optimization and not just curmudgeonly bitching. :) ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
