Yes, of course. (See the skeleton code I used for it in the commit message.)
On 2010-06-24, Robby Findler wrote:
> Thanks for running more timiggs. One last question: your timing tests
> were in a module, not the toplevel, right?
>
> Robby
>
> On Thursday, June 24, 2010, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
Thanks for running more timiggs. One last question: your timing tests
were in a module, not the toplevel, right?
Robby
On Thursday, June 24, 2010, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Jun 23, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>> Do we really want to remove contracts from code just because they
>> don't perform
On Jun 23, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Do we really want to remove contracts from code just because they
> don't perform as well as hand-written checks?
The code in question is about 15 lines; at least I expect such code to
run fast enough so I'll use it instead of writing my own 15 lines; the
A factor of 4 for removing those contracts and turning them into
checks seems suspicious. They should not be that bad. Possibly Eli
made other changes in there too?
Robby
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>> We
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Were the contracts -> and/or ->*, or were they ->d?
Here are the removed contracts:
[enqueue! (-> queue/c any/c void?)]
[dequeue! (-> nonempty-queue/c any/c)]
--
sam th
sa...@ccs.neu.edu
_
Were the contracts -> and/or ->*, or were they ->d?
Robby
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM, wrote:
>> 3f36d05 Eli Barzilay 2010-06-23 16:10
>> :
>> | Turn contracts on `enqueue!' and `dequeue!' into the usual error checks.
>> |
>> |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM, wrote:
> 3f36d05 Eli Barzilay 2010-06-23 16:10
> :
> | Turn contracts on `enqueue!' and `dequeue!' into the usual error checks.
> |
> | On a simple benchmark of:
> |
> | (let ([N 10]
> | [M 20]
> | [q (make-queue)])
> | (time (for ([i (i
7 matches
Mail list logo
