On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Will M. Farr wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you want to thread the vector index through using `for/fold'
>> instead of drawing the index from a sequence. The expansion could
>> insert enough `#:when' clauses to compare the i
On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> Maybe you want to thread the vector index through using `for/fold'
> instead of drawing the index from a sequence. The expansion could
> insert enough `#:when' clauses to compare the index to the length
> before each nested iteration.
>
This
At Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:36:03 -0500, "Will M. Farr" wrote:
> > Either choice --- error or stopping --- interacts awkwardly with
> > `for*/vector'. If you've going to raise an exception, the natural thing
> > to do with `for/vector' would be to stop as soon as the sequence goes
> > too far. But `for*
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Will M. Farr wrote:
> Thanks for sharing your code, and for the comments. Let me see if I
> understand this correctly: the following code should produce a total, a
> vector whose elements are the partial sums of elements at lower indices than
> the correspondi
Noel,
Thanks for sharing your code, and for the comments. Let me see if I understand
this correctly: the following code should produce a total, a vector whose
elements are the partial sums of elements at lower indices than the
corresponding element of the input vector, and a vector whose eleme
Matthew & co,
On Aug 21, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I didn't think of this before, but probably you should add a check that
> the length expression proceduces a nonnegative exact integer:
>
> (syntax/loc stx
> (let ((len length-expr))
> (unless (exact-
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Will M. Farr wrote:
> Matthew & co,
...
> I'll make sure to throw a syntax error if I see a #:when in the for-clauses,
> and I think I should give up on the for*/vector #:length variant. I was
> hoping that you would have some sort of neat trick to keep a runnin
At Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:05:12 -0500, "Will M. Farr" wrote:
> Thanks very much for the comments. I'll get to work preparing an updated
> version using #:size soon, and send it to Sam for pushing.
I should have suggested `#:length', since it corresponds to
`vector-length'.
I didn't think of this
Matthew,
Thanks very much for the comments. I'll get to work preparing an updated
version using #:size soon, and send it to Sam for pushing. As for the issue of
a #:size that doesn't match the length of the iteration, I have been thinking
about adding a check inside the loop (for sizes that a
At Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:45:43 -0400, sa...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> +(define-syntax for*/flvector
> + (lambda (stx)
> +(syntax-case stx ()
> + ((for*/flvector (for-clause ...) body)
> + (syntax/loc stx
> + (list->flvector (for*/list (for-clause ...) body
> + ((for*/f
10 matches
Mail list logo
