Newest at the top
| 2024-05-16 18:25:27 +0200 | <ski> | if you're okay with a dense caching space, you could try caching with an array |
| 2024-05-16 18:25:20 +0200 | <Guest13> | I don't know upfront which triples are needed |
| 2024-05-16 18:24:55 +0200 | <Guest13> | can be sparse or dense depending on input |
| 2024-05-16 18:24:49 +0200 | <ski> | (or `Map Int (Map Int (Map Int Result))', i guess ..) |
| 2024-05-16 18:24:35 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2024-05-16 18:24:25 +0200 | <ski> | ok, maybe it would make sense to cache in a three-dimensional array, or (if you only need sparse inputs) maybe use a `Map (Int,Int,Int) Result' or something like that (that'd still require you to know upfront which triples would be needed, which might not be ideal) |
| 2024-05-16 18:22:53 +0200 | <ski> | (for each new toplevel call, you'd generate a fresh/new cache, from scratch, whose results would only be reused for recursive calls stemming from that particular toplevel call) |
| 2024-05-16 18:22:38 +0200 | <Guest13> | I can formulate it as Int Int Int, with constant [Int] and String |
| 2024-05-16 18:22:35 +0200 | cfricke | (~cfricke@user/cfricke) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2024-05-16 18:22:24 +0200 | <Guest13> | this would be ideal |
| 2024-05-16 18:22:10 +0200 | <ski> | if only some of the parameters changed in recursive calls, then you could, within a single toplevel call, only cache for the changing parameters, thereby simplifying the datastructure needed to cache results |
| 2024-05-16 18:21:26 +0200 | <Guest13> | I could frame it as Int Int Int and have [Int] and String as references |
| 2024-05-16 18:20:53 +0200 | <Guest13> | the recursive call changes all of the above, and the top call I believe will start at 0 0 [Int] String |
| 2024-05-16 18:20:07 +0200 | <Guest13> | can you explain what is the difference? |
| 2024-05-16 18:19:47 +0200 | <ski> | oh, and when i asked "which of those are actually changing ?", i specifically had *recursive* calls in mind (not initial/top calls from other places) |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:35 +0200 | <Guest13> | yes |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:33 +0200 | <Guest13> | to make it easy I just wanted to cache results of calls |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:29 +0200 | <ski> | .. or are you just looking for caching results of calls, to avoid recomputing later ? |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:21 +0200 | <Guest13> | yes, but I am probably framing it badly |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:06 +0200 | <ski> | are you sure dynamic programming would make sense, for your problem, then ? |
| 2024-05-16 18:18:02 +0200 | <Guest13> | I can simplify it to Int Int [Int] String |
| 2024-05-16 18:17:19 +0200 | <Guest13> | all of them |
| 2024-05-16 18:17:11 +0200 | <ski> | Guest13 : and which of those are actually changing ? |
| 2024-05-16 18:17:10 +0200 | manwithluck | (~manwithlu@149.102.244.20) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-05-16 18:16:57 +0200 | <ski> | i guess that's the connection, then |
| 2024-05-16 18:16:40 +0200 | <dolio> | Lists in the case of old lisp. |
| 2024-05-16 18:16:30 +0200 | <dolio> | And that's what 'map' does on all elements of some container. |
| 2024-05-16 18:16:20 +0200 | <Guest13> | or at least what I had in the recursive call |
| 2024-05-16 18:16:11 +0200 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d173-183-246-216.abhsia.telus.net) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2024-05-16 18:15:58 +0200 | <Guest13> | yes, [Int] [Int] int String are the parameters |
| 2024-05-16 18:15:27 +0200 | <dolio> | Anyhow, 'map' doesn't just mean 'function' it's also the act of associating or carrying an input to an output by a function. |
| 2024-05-16 18:15:15 +0200 | <Guest13> | sorry ski I had to pick my mum up from station |
| 2024-05-16 18:14:58 +0200 | Guest13 | (~Guest13@cpc93370-hers8-2-0-cust590.6-3.cable.virginm.net) |
| 2024-05-16 18:14:46 +0200 | <c_wraith> | wow, good sentence construction there. |
| 2024-05-16 18:14:42 +0200 | <lambdabot> | [0,0,1,0,3] |
| 2024-05-16 18:14:40 +0200 | <ski> | > [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3] \\ [2,1,0] |
| 2024-05-16 18:14:28 +0200 | <c_wraith> | is Int overflow behavior actually specified on overflow? |
| 2024-05-16 18:13:11 +0200 | <dolio> | Lists aren't subsets, though. |
| 2024-05-16 18:12:07 +0200 | <ski> | if you think of the list as representing a subset, then the `map' function computes the (existential/direct) image of the function on that subset .. not sure why one would call this "map" |
| 2024-05-16 18:11:28 +0200 | kuribas` | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-05-16 18:11:01 +0200 | <ski> | i guess 1.5 probably does then, too |
| 2024-05-16 18:10:37 +0200 | <ski> | finite subset of the domain) |
| 2024-05-16 18:10:30 +0200 | <ski> | anyway, for the data structure, surely "(finite) map" is because it's representing a "map" (or "mapping"), being a word that's basically a synonym for "function","transform", the "finite" part referring to that it has a finite domain, or that it's a partial function defined on a finite subset of the domain (sometimes representing a function with "finite support" meaning that it only maps to "nonzero" on a |
| 2024-05-16 18:09:43 +0200 | ubert | (~Thunderbi@2a02:8109:ab8a:5a00:c695:1779:f1ed:a0d3) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-05-16 18:09:12 +0200 | <dolio> | The lisp 1.6 manual has it. |
| 2024-05-16 18:06:07 +0200 | <dolio> | I think it goes pretty far back in lisp. |
| 2024-05-16 18:05:31 +0200 | econo_ | (uid147250@id-147250.tinside.irccloud.com) |
| 2024-05-16 18:05:21 +0200 | <ski> | did LISP 1.5 have `MAPCAR' ? |
| 2024-05-16 18:04:59 +0200 | <ski> | i wonder about the etymology of the `map' function |
| 2024-05-16 18:04:57 +0200 | danse-nr3 | (~danse-nr3@151.43.160.43) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |