Linear update, etc.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(08 Oct 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Adam Nelson
(08 Oct 2020 17:27 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(08 Oct 2020 18:52 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
John Cowan
(08 Oct 2020 19:13 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Oct 2020 19:28 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(08 Oct 2020 19:45 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Oct 2020 19:52 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc. Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (08 Oct 2020 19:59 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Oct 2020 20:06 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(08 Oct 2020 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Oct 2020 20:37 UTC)
|
Re: Linear update, etc.
Adam Nelson
(05 Feb 2021 05:26 UTC)
|
On 2020-10-08 21:52 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > Am Do., 8. Okt. 2020 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe > <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>: > > > Yes. This is one reason why I'm rather sad that vector-set! can't be > > linear update--there are plenty of immutable implementations of vectors > > which can guarantee O(log n) access. > > What do you mean by linear-update here? > > Do you mean a non-destructive update instead? Yes, of course. I meant "linear update" in the sense of SRFI 1's use of the term: > A "linear update" procedure is allowed -- but not required -- to > side-effect its arguments in order to construct its result. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "The Algol compiler was so poorly implemented that we dared not rely on it, and working with assembler code was considered dishonorable. There remained only Fortran." --Niklaus Wirth