Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "zaemon".
Did you mean:
daemon
2010 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
...ire the stack frame.
A colleague of mine and I have looked into it and prima facie believe that it's entirely feasible. I wanted to ask the list if there was any interest, any objections, and of course, anything pointers/tips that may prove useful.
Regards
--
Simon Harris
w: http://www.harukizaemon.com/
e: haruki.zaemon at gmail.com
m: +61 417 505 611
t: @haruki_zaemon
2005 Dec 16
4
Validation with Aggregation
...es table
and use belongs_to but that seems (to me at least) a somewhat heave-
handed approach.
Regards,
Simon
--
Simon Harris
RedHill Consulting, Pty. Ltd.
12/55-67 Batman Street
West Melbourne VIC Australia 3003
http://www.redhillconsulting.com.au
mob: +61 417 505 611
yahoo/msn/skype: haruki_zaemon
gmail: haruki.zaemon
icq: 20461518
2010 Jan 04
0
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On Monday 04 January 2010 01:12:55 Simon Harris wrote:
> I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for
> "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing
> implementation to discard the stack frame for the caller before executing
> the callee. I would then like to extend this further by performing hard
>
2005 Dec 17
1
How to use validation with aggregation (composed_of)?
...es table
and use belongs_to but that seems (to me at least) a somewhat heave-
handed approach.
Regards,
Simon
--
Simon Harris
RedHill Consulting, Pty. Ltd.
12/55-67 Batman Street
West Melbourne VIC Australia 3003
http://www.redhillconsulting.com.au
mob: +61 417 505 611
yahoo/msn/skype: haruki_zaemon
gmail: haruki.zaemon
icq: 20461518
2010 Jan 04
3
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
...not understand what tail calls
> LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate?
Mutual recursion for a start:
def a(n)
n <= 0 ? "DONE" : b(n - 1)
end
def b(n)
n <= 0 ? "DONE" : a(n - 1)
end
a(10000000)
Boom!
--
Simon Harris
w: http://www.harukizaemon.com/
e: haruki.zaemon at gmail.com
m: +61 417 505 611
t: @haruki_zaemon
2007 Mar 29
0
Associations and << only setting foreign key not instance
What''s the rationale for not setting the foreign instance when using
<< but setting it when using .create, .build, etc.
Is it an oversight and should I raise a request or is it deliberate?
Cheers,
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to