Last night I spent a couple of hours trying to find a clean way to
implement this loop:
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlgeocode.html#samplecode
The main thing here is that each loop loop iteration is expensive, so
whatever persistence mechanism is in place needs to happen right
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Darrin Thompsondarri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was bothered by the nagging idea that there was probably an
important utility somewhere I was missing.
In cases like this I run screaming to the locals vocab thereby at
least removing the unbalanced branches
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Chris Doublechris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
In cases like this I run screaming to the locals vocab thereby at
least removing the unbalanced branches difficulties :-)
Back in Python land I would run screaming to generators.
Generators let you tease out little
Darrin,
The Google Maps geocoding API is one of the shittiest services they offer.
The nested while loops are unnecessary btw, the one loop is iterating over
the list of elements, and the other is waiting on a semaphor to see if it
should keep retrying. The delay is due to that they rate limit
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Darrin Thompsondarri...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried putting together a loop utility where the delay was increased
and iteration retried every time the iteration threw a particular
exception. But I was like try this and factor was like unbalanced
branches and then
Perhaps instead of with-return/loop you could structure the word as a
tail-recursive function. The way its coded right now it doesn't return
the 'obj' parameter on the stack.
If you make it tail recursive, you'll need to tell the compiler that
'quot' is a quotation, and declare it 'inline
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Slava Pestovsl...@factorcode.org wrote:
Perhaps instead of with-return/loop you could structure the word as a
tail-recursive function. The way its coded right now it doesn't return
the 'obj' parameter on the stack.
If you make it tail recursive, you'll need to
Yeah, the stack checker's error reporting leaves something to be desired...
Slava
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Darrin Thompsondarri...@gmail.com wrote:
Oops, I meant to try the code without param. That's a relic earlier
hacking with it. As it stands I was able to feed the geocoder to it
