[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: source for literate lisp noweb

From: C Y
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: source for literate lisp noweb
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT)

--- Waldek Hebisch <address@hidden> wrote:

> I wonder why there is so much consing (and run time) here: all you
> have to do in Lisp is to create a few thousends of processes.  And
> most of the run time should be in system calls (system time looks
> just OK for that work).  IIUC actual noweb run time contibutes to
> real time, but does not show as Lisp run time, so I wonder what else
> is Lisp doing.

Most likely something about the way I set up the test was incorrect. 
FWIW, I've attached the code I'm using to run both tests.  I'm
certainly all for a fair comparison, so if I've goofed it would be good
to know.

In essense Waldek, aside from some changing of name labels and
switching to using defstruct, the functional output of the macros
should be the same as the code you posted - that's what I was shooting
for.  I'll be glad to post it in a bit but first I need to clean up the
literate part so it's not so embarrassing.
> This discrepancy is in version that I posted in:
> namely the fragment below (which searches for chunk start) assumed
> that
> '>' can not occur in chunk name, if it is allowed one should use the
> following code:
>        in-chunk-start-tag-3
>          (incf pos)
>          (setf code (aref buff pos))
>          (if (eql code end-tag-code-2)
>              (go in-chunk-start-tag-4))
>          (if (eql code newline-code)
>              (go normal-start))
>          (go in-chunk-start-tag)
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     was  (go normal)

Good catch!
> Incidentally, the other part (which scans for <<...>> markers)
> allows '>' in the name.

OK.  Was there any conclusion about whether the end-of-file line return
and white spaces pose a problem?  I wouldn't expect them to in lisp,
but perhaps SPAD isn't so forgiving.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Attachment: runnotangle.lisp
Description: 169288791-runnotangle.lisp

Attachment: runlispnotangle.lisp
Description: 1259909849-runlispnotangle.lisp

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]