|
Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?
Bradley Lucier
(04 May 2020 03:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?
John Cowan
(04 May 2020 14:14 UTC)
|
|
array-ref and array-set! (was Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?)
Bradley Lucier
(04 May 2020 18:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: array-ref and array-set! (was Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?)
John Cowan
(04 May 2020 21:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: array-ref and array-set! (was Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?) Bradley Lucier (05 May 2020 02:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: array-ref and array-set! (was Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?)
John Cowan
(05 May 2020 02:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?
Bradley Lucier
(04 May 2020 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: array-ref and array-set! (was Re: Some reshape operators are affine, should they be in this SRFI?) Bradley Lucier 05 May 2020 02:10 UTC
On 5/4/20 5:20 PM, John Cowan wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:39 PM Bradley Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu > <mailto:xxxxxx@purdue.edu>> wrote: > > So if the difference is 0.348399 versus 0.896669 for using > > (let ((A_ (array-getter A))) ... (A_ i j)) > > versus > ( ... (array-ref A i j)) > > then it's worth investigating. > > > That is remarkably large. Still, the rationale here is > convenience/familiarity rather than performance. If array-ref and array-set! were macros they would be quite a bit faster. I wonder whether this could be an option. Brad