On 8/8/2020 9:45 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Sat, 8 Aug 2020 03:32:57 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
>
> On 8/8/2020 1:55 AM, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote:
> > I even saw people doing `collect-garbage` three times, just to be safe
> > I guess. And yet theoretically it's not guaranteed that thin
At Sat, 8 Aug 2020 03:32:57 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
>
> On 8/8/2020 1:55 AM, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote:
> > I even saw people doing `collect-garbage` three times, just to be safe
> > I guess. And yet theoretically it's not guaranteed that things will be
> > claimed back properly.
> >
> >
On 8/8/2020 1:55 AM, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote:
I even saw people doing `collect-garbage` three times, just to be safe
I guess. And yet theoretically it's not guaranteed that things will be
claimed back properly.
Honestly, there should be a function that does this `collect-garbage`
unti
I even saw people doing `collect-garbage` three times, just to be safe I
guess. And yet theoretically it's not guaranteed that things will be
claimed back properly.
Honestly, there should be a function that does this `collect-garbage` until
fixpoint or something, so that we don't need to perform t
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:23:52 -0700 (PDT), "'Joel Dueck' via Racket
Users" wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 10:44:21 AM UTC-5 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> Here's a benchmark of your two functions that takes long enough to run
>> that it avoids some of these issues, and also runs a GC bef
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT),
"wanp...@gmail.com"
wrote:
>I was working on a exercism problem named Raindrops.
>
> :
>
>I thought version 1 would be faster, but it turned out to be wrong. Running
>with raco test got following timing information.
>
>version 1
>cpu time: 9 real time:
6 matches
Mail list logo
