on a 128 CPU machine... now I know
that's not entirely realistic, but it should be able to run at least say
60 times faster.
Amdahl's law applies here: no amount of paralellism will speed up
an inheirently sequential algorithm
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
will only lead to mysterious bugs and programmer
missunderstandings.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
array.
I imagine that each primative type will have a default default :-)
int0
str''
num0.0
etc.
and if we define a prop is no_default then you get what ever
junk happens to be in memory. (this for even more speed)
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
copies. Besides a wrapped inline sub is in no different
situation as a inlined sub being called in another inlined sub,
this seem to be all part of what the compiler has to be able to do
to deal with a recursive sub that is also declared inline.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
feed (cat_table %cats) {...}
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to IO:STDOUT
although maybe what I really want is := instead.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
need to be an lvalue clouser to handle is rw paramenters.
Side effects happen each time the thunk is called. Also changes
to the thunks environment can effect its value when called.
Either of those can have threading added as well.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, one(@a) is. I suppose we could define a
:uniq(true|false) adverb to modify the meaning of one() so we could
have both interpretations.
Mark Biggar
) that something is not impure is an
NP-complete problem.
Worse it's equivalent to the halting problem (I.e., not solvable). In
general any non-trivial
property of a program of the form Does this program ever do ... is
equivalent to the halting problem.
Mark Biggar
--
m...@biggar.org
mark.a.big
Darren Duncan wrote:
In reply to Jon Lang,
What I'm proposing here in the general case, is a generic collection
type, Interval say, that can represent a discontinuous interval of an
ordered type. A simple way of defining such a type is that it is a Set
of Pair of Ordered, where each Pair
On 4/9/2010 4:53 AM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Am 09.04.2010 13:34, schrieb Mark J. Reed:
The date still corresponds to an actual day. If I set it to Feb 31, I
should get back Mar 2 or 3 depending on the year. While I'm having
trouble thinking of a good specific example, it's a capability I've
taken
11 matches
Mail list logo
