[racket] FW: q about code for partitions

Vincent: exact-zero? is defined through 'make-predicate' which uses
contract machinery to generate the function. I filed a couple of bugs
tracking some of the slowness issues. There is no `contract` form
though so I doubt that the coach will find it.

http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=default&pr=14610
http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=default&pr=14611

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jos Koot <jos.koot at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great work, Jens. I am glad my approach as been adopted (and much improved
> without deviating from the original idea of simpler recurrence). When can we
> expect it in the next nightly build?
>
> Thanks, Jos
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jensaxelsoegaard at gmail.com
>> [mailto:jensaxelsoegaard at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jens Axel Søgaard
>> Sent: domingo, 29 de junio de 2014 12:48
>> To: Matthew Flatt
>> Cc: Jos Koot; Racket Users List
>> Subject: Re: [racket] FW: q about code for partitions
>>
>> I have made a new vector version using zero? instead of exact-zero?.
>>
>> To give users a chance to remove the cache after doing
>> partitions calculations,
>> I have added set-partitions-cache.
>>
>>    Code:
>>
>> https://github.com/soegaard/racket/blob/patch-14/pkgs/math-pkg
> s/math-lib/math/private/number-theory/partitions.rkt
>>
>>    Discussion:
>>     https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/697
>>
>> /Jens Axel
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-29 12:44 GMT+02:00 Jens Axel Søgaard <jensaxel at soegaard.net>:
>> > 2014-06-29 8:47 GMT+02:00 Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>:
>> >> It looks like "partitions2.rkt" ends up calling a contract-wrapped
>> >> variant of `exact-zero?`.
>> >
>> > That explains why Eric saw an improvement, when the used #f
>> instead of
>> > 0 as the not-cached-yet value.
>> >
>> > /Jens Axel
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Jens Axel Søgaard
>
>
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users