On Oct 6, 2011, at 4:35 PM, "John Clements" wrote:
> If there's any disagreement, it's about what should happen when an existing
> file--specifically, one that doesn't begin with #lang--is opened. Unless I'm
> missing something, this means that the only time students will have to
> "re-selec
(And I feel obliged here to suggest that there should be some way to
write test cases for this kind of thing -- ones that are not based on
timing things but ones that are based on feeding some expressions into
a compiler and making sure they get re-ordered in an expected way.)
Robby
On Thu, Oct 6
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2011, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>> In Le Fessant and Maranget, ICFP 2001, they have measurements that
>>> show a 30% speedup of whole (toy) programs, w
That certainly doesn't seem right. It should prefer the pair check, but
it's supposed to treat calling embedded expressions as slow. I'll take a
look at that.
On Oct 6, 2011 7:13 PM, "Jay McCarthy" wrote:
>
> Given all this talk of optimization, I'm still amazed that my original
> example faile
Given all this talk of optimization, I'm still amazed that my original
example failed. Basically, the ordering optimization decided that
(and (pair? (cdr e))
(parse (car (cdr e
is cheaper than
(equal? '+ (car e))
Jay
--
Jay McCarthy
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
h
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> In Le Fessant and Maranget, ICFP 2001, they have measurements that
>> show a 30% speedup of whole (toy) programs, with a similar but smaller
>> suite of optimizations.
>
> Does match
On Thursday, October 6, 2011, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> In Le Fessant and Maranget, ICFP 2001, they have measurements that
> show a 30% speedup of whole (toy) programs, with a similar but smaller
> suite of optimizations.
Does match reproduce that speedup?
> Given the extensibility of `match'
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>>> In Eli's example, only the second pattern could match
>>>
>>> But if we wrote it this way:
>>>
>>> (define (list?? x) (prin
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> In Eli's example, only the second pattern could match
>>
>> But if we wrote it this way:
>>
>> (define (list?? x) (printf "list-checking ~s\n" x) (list? x))
>> (define (one?? x) (
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> In Eli's example, only the second pattern could match
>
> But if we wrote it this way:
>
> (define (list?? x) (printf "list-checking ~s\n" x) (list? x))
> (define (one?? x) (printf "one-checking ~s\n" x) (eq? 1 x))
> (match '(1 (2) 3)
>
In Eli's example, only the second pattern could match
But if we wrote it this way:
(define (list?? x) (printf "list-checking ~s\n" x) (list? x))
(define (one?? x) (printf "one-checking ~s\n" x) (eq? 1 x))
(match '(1 (2) 3)
[(list (? one??) (list 2) 3) 1]
[(list _ (? list??) _
In Le Fessant and Maranget, ICFP 2001, they have measurements that
show a 30% speedup of whole (toy) programs, with a similar but smaller
suite of optimizations.
Given the extensibility of `match', the performance difference can be
made arbitrarily large. For example, Eli's example doesn't call t
Do we have performance measurements that show the importance of such
reorderings?
Robby
On Thursday, October 6, 2011, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 01:20 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>> Just now, Neil Toronto wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2011 12:28 PM, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
On 10/6/11
10 minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> >> If anything, just the name of the "use the language defined in
> >> the source" language is a very long one, which is unfortunate
> >> since it's often the one that gets recommended often.
> >
> > Easy to agree here. :)
>
> Yes, I totally agree with th
On Oct 6, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Two hours ago, John Clements wrote:
>>> Currently, opening a file that doesn't begin with a #lang line
>>> results in a window whose language level is inherited from the
>>> buffer that was foremost when the open-file was issued (IIUC).
>
> No,
On 10/06/2011 01:20 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Just now, Neil Toronto wrote:
On 10/06/2011 12:28 PM, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
On 10/6/11 2:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Sam is talking about building the ASTs *while* matching, which is
what Jay was trying to do with uses of `app'. I think that a
teach
Just now, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 12:28 PM, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
> > On 10/6/11 2:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> >> Sam is talking about building the ASTs *while* matching, which is
> >> what Jay was trying to do with uses of `app'. I think that a
> >> teaching context is in particu
On 10/06/2011 12:28 PM, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
On 10/6/11 2:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Sam is talking about building the ASTs *while* matching, which is what
Jay was trying to do with uses of `app'. I think that a teaching
context is in particular one where such a thing doesn't fit -- it
obscur
Yesterday, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 03:25 PM, John Clements wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> >
> >> I've just pushed the new 'plot' library.
> >>
> >> Eli and I both forgot that the new 'plot' still needs the old
> >> libfit, and removed it along with libp
Two hours ago, John Clements wrote:
>> Currently, opening a file that doesn't begin with a #lang line
>> results in a window whose language level is inherited from the
>> buffer that was foremost when the open-file was issued (IIUC).
No, it defaults to whatever language you last chose in the langu
On 10/6/11 2:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Sam is talking about building the ASTs *while* matching, which is what
Jay was trying to do with uses of `app'. I think that a teaching
context is in particular one where such a thing doesn't fit -- it
obscures the distinction between the side the sexpr g
Just now, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > A few minutes ago, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
> >> Sam wrote:
> >>
> >> > Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the
> >> > use-case of building ASTs while matching.
> >>
> >> Wait, what? That's e
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>> > Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the
>> > use-case of building ASTs while matching.
>>
>> Wait, what? That's exactly what I want to use it for when writing
>
+1, but for different reasons than editing html files... I'd like to
see the "use the language defined in the source" become the default
for all purposes -- so at least when you open a file that does have a
`#lang' line, or when you type it in, the non-"use the language
defined in the source" lang
A few minutes ago, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
> > Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the
> > use-case of building ASTs while matching.
>
> Wait, what? That's exactly what I want to use it for when writing
> toy interpreters for pedagogical purposes. Or am I misunde
Sam wrote:
Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the use-case
of building ASTs while matching.
Wait, what? That's exactly what I want to use it for when writing toy
interpreters for pedagogical purposes. Or am I misunderstanding what
you're saying here? I want to do PLAI-st
Currently, opening a file that doesn't begin with a #lang line results in a
window whose language level is inherited from the buffer that was foremost when
the open-file was issued (IIUC). I think this is a mistake. I think that
instead, the language level should revert to "Use the language defi
What they import is orthogonal to the syntax for importing.
> How about this experiment: everyone teach in plain Racket for a while
> and see whether teaching language restrictions are really needed.
That would be a good experiment. My own suspicion is that getting rid
of implicit begin will pro
We have had students that write
(require racket)
and happily program away -- actually are very unhappy due to bugs.
How about this experiment: everyone teach in plain Racket for a while
and see whether teaching language restrictions are really needed.
On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Shriram
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Sure you COULD do that, but app is so cool, I just like the way it looks.
Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the use-case
of building ASTs while matching. If you wanted that, you'd need to
definitely think harder about a
30 matches
Mail list logo
