Is there perhaps a more suggestive name? (Not that I'm coming up with
one...)
Robby
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Vincent St-Amour stamo...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
At Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:05:21 +0100,
Marijn wrote:
On 27-02-13 21:51, Neil Toronto wrote:
(An example that came up in the
Yes, you're right. Sorry for that confusion. I don't have that confusion
with positive? and +0.0, after all!
Robby
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Eric Dobson eric.n.dob...@gmail.comwrote:
Why is Nonnegative-Real not suggestive of the right thing? To me that
means (and/c real? (not/c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27-02-13 21:51, Neil Toronto wrote:
(An example that came up in the implementation of matrix norms: the
type of (sqrt (/ 1 x)) isn't Nonnegative-Real if x :
Nonnegative-Real, but Complex. Consider x = -0.0. Without TR's
complaints,
On Sunday, Eli Barzilay wrote:
According to my rough count (and running setup with a -j 1),
compiling `math' takes 40% of the whole tree compilation.
I'm surprised that nobody finds this disturbing. Maybe it was the
lack of bangs in the subject.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x)
On 02/27/2013 01:51 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
On Sunday, Eli Barzilay wrote:
According to my rough count (and running setup with a -j 1),
compiling `math' takes 40% of the whole tree compilation.
I'm running my own timing tests. So far, I've got 917s (about 15
minutes) to compile the math
According to my rough count (and running setup with a -j 1),
compiling `math' takes 40% of the whole tree compilation.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_
Use git format-patch to create patch files for your range of commits and
then apply them to the current head using git am
Kevin
On 11/17/2012 06:57 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
2012/11/16 Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com:
I've just made the initial commit for the math library. You will
Well, you can also use git rebase. It basically the same as that, but easier.
Robby
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Kevin Tew t...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Use git format-patch to create patch files for your range of commits and
then apply them to the current head using git am
Kevin
On
Hi All,
Thanks to Asumu, Erich and a few others on the irc channel
I got it working.
I tried rebasing, but couldn't make it work. I am not sure why.
The resulting pull request still had the entire history.
Then I tried making a new branch. Reseting to a point before
Neils initial commit. Then
I just read the documentation. This is great stuff.
Some choices quotes and comments:
[sum] is like (apply + xs), but incurs rounding error only once when
adding inexact numbers. (In fact, the inexact numbers in xs are summed
separately using flsum.)
Use (random-natural k) instead of (random k)
I've just made the initial commit for the math library. You will all
notice the build time increase. Some will notice that (require math)
imports a bunch of goodies that Racket didn't have before.
About half is documented so far, and half has coverage in the test
cases. Some things are known
I'm seeing two build problems on Mac OS X:
* No libmpfr.dylib
This looks like a problem with `math/private/matrix/matrix-sequences'
importing `math/matrix' at too many phases. Removing the `for-syntax'
and `for-template' imports let me get past this one.
(I won't be able to run
2012/11/16 Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu:
* require: unknown module
module name: #resolved-module-path:(submod
/Users/mflatt/proj/plt/collects/math/special-functions.rkt
typed-module5)
So far, this one looks like a problem with finding a submodule in a
.zo file --- that
At Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:21:29 +0100, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
2012/11/16 Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu:
* require: unknown module
module name: #resolved-module-path:(submod
/Users/mflatt/proj/plt/collects/math/special-functions.rkt
typed-module5)
So far, this one looks
A fix is even better!
Thanks,
Jens Axel
2012/11/16 Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu:
At Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:21:29 +0100, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
2012/11/16 Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu:
* require: unknown module
module name: #resolved-module-path:(submod
I get this message (during doc build, actually):
raco setup: error running: (lib math/scribblings/math.scrbl)
ffi-lib: couldn't open libmpfr.so (libmpfr.so: cannot open shared
object file: No such file or directory)
I have /usr/lib/libmpfr.so.1, which is symlinked to
From the cheap seats. Built clean. Except for warning below. Test failed
as libffi as initially was not found by the dynamic load. After adjusting
version in mpfr.rkt. Test produced pi ... 4888
Applicable lib version on Ubuntu 12.10.
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmpfr.so.4
On 10/01/2012 02:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
* `math/base' re-exports `racket/math', but with extra constants (like
`phi.0') and functions (like `power-of-two?'). It also exports improved
hyperbolic functions,
I think this idea is worth exploring. Sam and Eli should implement it.
On Oct 5, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
I know
What I mean is an _abstraction mechanism_ inside of TR. Possibly
something that nobody else has.
+18.59
And a
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
This is similar to the testing code I wrote, and it also exhibits quadratic
behavior. The `apply*' macro generates the simplest deep expression
possible. It's used to repeatedly apply a function with the simplest
On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
(case- (Zero - Zero)
(Flonum - Flonum)
(Real - Real)
(Float-Complex - Float-Complex)
(Complex - Complex))
I haven't been able to give it a type as specific as the type of the `sinh'
exported from
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
(case- (Zero - Zero)
(Flonum - Flonum)
(Real - Real)
(Float-Complex - Float-Complex)
(Complex - Complex))
I haven't been
On Oct 4, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
(case- (Zero - Zero)
(Flonum - Flonum)
(Real - Real)
(Float-Complex -
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
The only bit that bothers me is the (begin (not (flonum-wrapper? x)) ...)
stuff left lying around after TR's optimizer eliminates the branches in the
expansions of `fw+'. IIRC, they cause futures to sync, but I'm going
@racket-lang.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:44:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Math library initial commit almost ready; comments on
issues welcome
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
The only bit that bothers me is the (begin
Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
Cc: dev@racket-lang.org dev@racket-lang.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:44:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Math library initial commit almost ready; comments
on issues welcome
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro
-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
To: J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu
Cc: dev dev@racket-lang.org, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:02:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Math library initial commit almost ready; comments on
issues welcome
On Tue
I think I'm about a week away from having the math library's initial
commit ready. It just needs some more docs and test cases.
Here are the high-level issues, for which I'm soliciting comments,
suggestions, questions, and answers:
* Compile time. It currently takes 1m20s to compile `math'
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'm about a week away from having the math library's initial commit
ready. It just needs some more docs and test cases.
Here are the high-level issues, for which I'm soliciting comments,
suggestions, questions,
On 10/01/2012 02:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
PR 13098 isn't really fixable, in some sense. There's just more data
there with broader types, so it will always take longer than for more
specific types. All of the
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2012 02:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
wrote:
PR 13098 isn't really fixable, in some sense. There's just more data
there with broader
On 10/01/2012 04:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2012 02:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
wrote:
My timing tests also show that
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2012 04:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10/01/2012 02:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Neil
On 10/01/2012 06:29 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
#lang typed/racket
(: plus (Flonum Flonum - Flonum))
(define (plus a b)
(+ a b))
(module provider racket
(require (submod ..))
(provide inline-plus)
Neil, do you intend to provide differentiat and integrate and possibly adjoin
operations on operators from your math collection? -- Matthias
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
On 07/07/2012 01:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Neil, do you intend to provide differentiat and integrate and possibly
adjoin operations on operators from your math collection?
I've considered numerical differentiation and integration. If you want
them, I'll make sure they
I found your message strange and I contemplated whether I should reply on 'dev'
at all.
In the interest of sharing and evolving the Racket idea, I am going with a
response on 'dev'. Your central claim is that the programming language
implementer is not a member of an elite, enlightened caste
Thanks for your correction. I think we're saying the same thing.
Although I think that the safety we claim to have isn't really there
with unsafe ops and the FFI. I can copy the definition of a closure
out of the C headers into an FFI struct, cast the _racket pointer to a
_closure-pointer, and
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to see a macro-like compiler extension API for
hooking into optimizations and different specialized JITing. Things
like that are a very effective use of template meta-programming in C++
that I think
One more comment (even tho I promised not (and even worse this is a
kind of repetition)): I think it is easy to fall into the trap of
thinking well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X
writes this code and thus can I can be sure that things work; we
should really be thinking about
Sorry.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X writes this code
and thus can I can be sure that things work
This is of course a caricature
FWIW, I agree with Robby and have had similar conversations with Sam
in person. (Although for me it is that I wish I had the ability to
claim that macro pieces had certain types regardless of what TR could
infer from the generated code.)
I think a big part of the Racket philosophy is that the
Ten minutes in, I've hit a snag. I'd like the stuff in math/functions to
have precise types. For example, log1p could have the type
(case- (Zero - Zero)
(Float - Float)
(Real - Real))
It was easy to get the implementation to typecheck, but when I tried to
plot it in
In this case, the contract could turn into a dependent one with the
same semantics. Does it make sense for TR to allow a user to declare
the equivalent contract?
Robby
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
Ten minutes in, I've hit a snag. I'd like the stuff
How would you check soundness between a type and its contract?
Types, like theorem provers, are addictive. The more expressivity
they provide, the more programmers want to play with them.
Use Real - Real and you'll be fine. -- Matthias
On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I'm addicted to optimizations. If I use Real - Real, TR can't prove
that (log1p 1.0) is Float and... hmm. I'll let Vincent explain why
that's bad. :)
Another option is to provide both log1p and fllog1p. I just wrote
fllog1p anyway.
Neil ⊥
On 06/26/2012 07:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:12 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
I'm addicted to optimizations. If I use Real - Real, TR can't prove that
(log1p 1.0) is Float and... hmm. I'll let Vincent explain why that's bad. :)
Another option is to provide both log1p and fllog1p. I just wrote fllog1p
anyway.
Well, you wouldn't. Are the implementations of the contracts proven to
be equivalent currently? Or do you just have a theorem that matches up
the ones in some model somewhere?
Robby
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
How would you check soundness
This sounds like a terrible solution.
There are lots of places in our system where we just declare facts and
don't prove them and then use them for lots of things (often
optimizations). Why should this one be special?
Robby
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Matthias Felleisen
Huh?
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Well, you wouldn't. Are the implementations of the contracts proven to
be equivalent currently? Or do you just have a theorem that matches up
the ones in some model somewhere?
Robby
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Matthias
Because the point of types is to have something proven.
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
This sounds like a terrible solution.
There are lots of places in our system where we just declare facts and
don't prove them and then use them for lots of things (often
I'm saying that people can make mistakes in Racket currently that
undermine the guarantees of the type system. But lets continue the
other line first.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Huh?
On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Well,
Certainly the dependent contract approach will work, but the 'Real - Real'
contract is also safe, so I'll see about generating that.
Sam
On Jun 26, 2012 8:37 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
wrote:
In this case, the contract could turn into a dependent one with the
same semantics.
I agree with that, to a point. Here were are now considering a very
concrete tradeoff, however: asking the user to cope with code
duplication in return for ... what? Very little, I claim. In
particular, I think that TR already has lots of type+contracts that
are asserted (not proven) to be
If even the few people who understand the type basis properly
get types wrong, why should you have programmers open up loopholes
into types that are supposed to harden their programs? When I have
just a few implementors manipulate the type base I can stick to the
allusion that the language is
Do you only use code that uses the FFI that people you trust wrote?
How about code in the runtime system? Both of these have lots of
people contributing code that can (and does) easily undermine basic
Racket guarantees, and you don't complain about that. Do you care
about type system guarantees
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
The safety in this case doesn't generalize to contracts like the one
Neil is suggesting when you go from an untyped value to a typed one,
tho, right?
Right, if we have an untyped value which we'd like to give the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
This sounds like a terrible solution.
There are lots of places in our system where we just declare facts and
don't prove them and then use them for lots of things (often
optimizations). Why should this one be
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
This sounds like a terrible solution.
There are lots of places in our system where we just declare facts and
don't prove them and
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
This sounds like a terrible solution.
There are
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Robby Findler
I haven't got a clue what you two are arguing about anymore. If you both
stop, maybe Sam can implement that perfectly safe change to the typed -
untyped contract barrier that he said he could do. That would be nice.
;)
Neil ⊥
On 06/26/2012 09:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012
Consider me done!
Robby
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't got a clue what you two are arguing about anymore. If you both
stop, maybe Sam can implement that perfectly safe change to the typed -
untyped contract barrier that he said he could
63 matches
Mail list logo
