Am 12.12.2015 um 16:13 schrieb John Cowan:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>
>> Maybe this is a good feature to add: a way to indicate that a type
>> declaration for the argument types to a procedure declared elsewhere
>> should be considered an assumption in the procedure body. This way
>> it would not
Am 12.12.2015 um 20:28 schrieb Peter Bex:
>>> Maybe this is a good feature to add: a way to indicate that a type
>>> > > declaration for the argument types to a procedure declared elsewhere
>>> > > should be considered an assumption in the procedure body.
>> >
>> > I'm afraid that I don't quite
Peter Bex scripsit:
> Maybe this is a good feature to add: a way to indicate that a type
> declaration for the argument types to a procedure declared elsewhere
> should be considered an assumption in the procedure body. This way
> it would not only affect callers, but also the procedure itself,
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:59:17AM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:35:35PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> > > Now, if you look at the patch you'll see that it changes irregex-core.scm,
> > > which means it creates a "fork" against that part of the code in
> And even if there are other Schemes with type hints (I'd love to hear if
> I've overlooked any!), I doubt they use a compatible syntax to ours,
> which means a wrapper macro would be pretty hairy.
Off the top of my head, there is also Kawa[0].
> Maybe this is a good feature to add: a way to
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 09:47:14AM -0800, Dan Leslie wrote:
>
> > And even if there are other Schemes with type hints (I'd love to hear if
> > I've overlooked any!), I doubt they use a compatible syntax to ours,
> > which means a wrapper macro would be pretty hairy.
>
> Off the top of my head,
Peter Bex scripsit:
> I can't say I find the documentation very clear, but it looks like it
> doesn't really use these declarations to optimize code (which is the
> goal of this patch).
It does, actually, specifically for JVM primitive types. However, there
are no external type declarations,
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:35:35PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> > Now, if you look at the patch you'll see that it changes irregex-core.scm,
> > which means it creates a "fork" against that part of the code in upstream.
> > I don't see a way to declare the type from the "outside",
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:30:47AM +0100, Kooda wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:12:46PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> > Using the unpatched version:
> > 1.336s CPU time, 0.028s GC time (major), 600061/2562 mutations
> > (total/tracked), 11/2823 GCs (major/minor)
> >
> > Using the patched
Hi all,
I've done some benchmarking of the irregex unit and I found that the
single most performance-critical part of the code is "cset-contains?".
This procedure is used to check the current character in the input string
against the regex DFA state's transition table while matching the input,
> Now, if you look at the patch you'll see that it changes irregex-core.scm,
> which means it creates a "fork" against that part of the code in upstream.
> I don't see a way to declare the type from the "outside", in irregex.scm,
> unless we also copy that code body as a macro, but that feels
11 matches
Mail list logo
