My string-trim uses unsafe ops, but I'm pretty sure it's safe. The (safe) string-length at the start ensures we're using a string. The rest are indexing and fixnum arithmetic on integers that are guaranteed to be valid indices of the string.
Still, if you don't like this, replace the unsafe ops with the corresponding safe ones. It will still be much faster than the built-in version. > On Jan 17, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-5, Brian Adkins wrote: >> >> With built-in string-trim, the lowest of three runs was 10293. Using your >> string-trim the lowest of three runs was 7618, so it reduced the runtime by >> 26%. > > Although, I probably should've mentioned that I'm not particularly interested > in unsafe optimizations. I already have a very fast C program if I'm willing > to risk unsafe behavior, so for Racket, I'd like to retain safety. > > Having said that, I'm pretty sure a combination of using Byte Strings and > manually optimizing string-trim & string-replace (or skipping them in some > cases) will get under the Ruby time. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
