search for: callcc

Would anyone like to explain if callCC in R 2.7.0 gives anything that on.exit does not already provide? It seems that the exit condition once defined cannot be added to overridden whereas with on.exit multiple on.exit's add additional on.exits rather than being ignored. Is this important?

...return(acc) ? ? ? ? else { ? ? ? ? ? ? .tailr_n <- n - 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? .tailr_acc <- acc * n ? ? ? ? ? ? n <- .tailr_n ? ? ? ? ? ? acc <- .tailr_acc ? ? ? ? ? ? next ? ? ? ? } ? ? } } factorial_tr_automatic_1 <- function(n, acc = 1) { ? ? .tailr_n <- n ? ? .tailr_acc <- acc ? ? callCC(function(escape) { ? ? ? ? repeat { ? ? ? ? ? ? n <- .tailr_n ? ? ? ? ? ? acc <- .tailr_acc ? ? ? ? ? ? if (n <= 1) { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? escape(acc) ? ? ? ? ? ? } else { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .tailr_n <<- n - 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .tailr_acc <<- n * acc ? ? ? ? ? ? } ? ? ? ? } ? ? }) } fac...

Following up on this attempt of implementing the tail-recursion optimisation ? now that I?ve finally had the chance to look at it again ? I find that non-local return implemented with callCC doesn?t actually incur much overhead once I do it more sensibly. I haven?t found a good way to handle parallel assignments that isn?t vastly slower than simply introducing extra variables, so I am going with that solution. However, I have now run into another problem involving those local variables...

...1 > .tailr_acc <- acc * n > n <- .tailr_n > acc <- .tailr_acc > next > } > } > } > > factorial_tr_automatic_1 <- function(n, acc = 1) { > .tailr_n <- n > .tailr_acc <- acc > callCC(function(escape) { > repeat { > n <- .tailr_n > acc <- .tailr_acc > if (n <= 1) { > escape(acc) > } else { > .tailr_n <<- n - 1 > .tailr_acc <<- n * a...

...introducing extra variables? solution to parallel assignment, and I could hack my way out of using `with` or `bind` in rewriting `cases`, but restarting a `repeat` loop would really make for a nicer solution. I know that `goto` is considered harmful, but really, in this case, it is what I want. A `callCC` version also solves the problem factorial_tr_4 <- function(n, acc = 1) { function_body <- function(continuation) { if (n <= 1) { continuation(acc) } else { continuation(list("continue", n = n - 1, acc = acc * n)) } } r...

...g extra variables? solution to parallel assignment, and I could hack my way out of using `with` or `bind` in rewriting `cases`, but restarting a `repeat` loop would really make for a nicer solution. I know that `goto` is considered harmful, but really, in this case, it is what I want. > > A `callCC` version also solves the problem > > factorial_tr_4 <- function(n, acc = 1) { > function_body <- function(continuation) { > if (n <= 1) { > continuation(acc) > } else { > continuation(list("continue", n = n - 1, acc = a...

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588 Bug ID: 11588 Summary: missing option: preallocate for all files except for sparse Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core

I appear to have written code which travels backwards through time: http://www.vimeo.com/742590 This disturbs me immensely. If anyone can explain it, that would be cool. I think it''s an illusion brought about by how RSpec wraps the code it executes, and by the sheer weirdness of continuations. -- Giles Bowkett Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com Portfolio:

...nning into a stack overflow since it is endlessly looping in the BUDataStructure::calculateGraphs method (excerpt of the debugging output is attached). > This is a known bug (PR#7929 at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7929). You can work around this problem by using the -dsa-no-filter-callcc=true, -dsa-no-filter-vararg=true, and -dsa-no-filter-intfp=true options. Apparently Will has already fixed it, so the work-around isn't necessary. That said, there is a bug (we believe it is in BU) that causes memory explosion on some programs (like 176.gcc). You may run into that bug on...

...es? solution to parallel assignment, > and I could hack my way out of using `with` or `bind` in rewriting `cases`, but > restarting a `repeat` loop would really make for a nicer solution. I know that > `goto` is considered harmful, but really, in this case, it is what I want. > > A `callCC` version also solves the problem > > factorial_tr_4 <- function(n, acc = 1) { > function_body <- function(continuation) { > if (n <= 1) { > continuation(acc) > } else { > continuation(list("continue", n = n - 1, ac...

Dear R-programmers, I am trying to program a Newton-Raphson in R (yes, i will try GSL, not right now), and it would be a real boon if R had tail call elimination, so that a recursive program has a guarantee not to fail due to stack overflows, given how slow loops in R are. I did look at the documentation, but could not find a reason for it. Regards, Mohit Dayal Researcher Applied Statistics

Dear list Can anyone suggest a simple way to abort execution like stop(...) does, but without issuing an "Error: ..." message? I don't want to set 'options( show.error.messages=TRUE)' because I want normal behaviour to resume after this particular stop. (Please reply personally as well as to the list, as I'm not subscribed to R-help) Thanks Mark -- Mark Bravington

Hi, I'm still using the release_26 version of Poolalloc/DSA with llvm 2.6 for my analyses and am currently trying to switch to llvm 2.7 for several reasons. I tried to use the trunk of the poolalloc svn repository with the llvm 2.7 release which is working fine for most of the programs I ran it on so far but for sqlite it's running into a stack overflow since it is endlessly looping in

I have tried quit(), and return() but first exits from whole graphical interface and second is only for functions. What I need only to exit from current script and return to the console. -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/beginner-simple-keyword-to-exit-script-tp3052417p3052417.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hey all, I am writing a plugin in which I want to stop the rendering of an action with an unauthorized response if the user is not authorized to view the resource. I am using a before filter to achieve this and inside that before filter I do it like so: render :text => "Unauthorized!", :status => :unauthorized, :layout => false The status is properly set since I see the

I have a telco providing DTMF inband, they say they can't provide it any other way. This is creating headaches for me. What is the common method for SIP DTMF? Kpml, or 2833 or inband? My handsets don't support inband so I'm tying up some expensive resources to convert the inband DTMF to out-of-band DTMF... Can you recommend a vendor in US that provides SIP with DTMF in RFC

...kfix: display test errors/warnings in vim quickfix window, jump to the place where error raised in source file quickly by press ''return'' + Small fixes. Get it here: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2612 Cheers, Jan -- jan=callcc{|jan|jan};jan.call(jan)

...n contains some small fix: * support rspec examples looks like example "this is an example" do * correctly handle single/double quote escape for rspec examples and vanilla testcases Check it out here: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2612 Best, Jan -- jan=callcc{|jan|jan};jan.call(jan)

Hi List, I''m a new rubyist and railist, and my web-dev background is php, where I used and contributed to the WACT framework. Continuations are dead cool aren''t they. As I understand it, the problem with having them in rails is that marshalling them isn''t feasbile, so in a stateless environment, they can''t be easily implemented. (Is this correct?) My idea

I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise, and this is what I've found so far. I've excluded trivial things that aren't basic semantic issues: support for arbitrary-precision integers; subscripting; general style; etc. I would appreciate corrections or additions from