freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog

22:05:20 serichsen good evening

23:25:50 drmeister phoe: Thanks for your help. Clasp has static vectors now.

23:30:28 dim congrats guys ;-)

23:30:57 dim does clasp have a form of save-lisp-and-die?

23:36:01 dim ACTION has to get afk, gn guys

23:44:53 Nomenclatura ACTION crawls under dim's bed

23:45:47 drmeister No - no save-lisp-and-die yet.

0:01:47 LdBeth so it’s a set of dynamic libraries loaded by loader

0:03:44 Lord_of_Life_ ** NICK Lord_of_Life

0:11:59 reepca is there a way in a LOOP's SUM clause to control where it starts summing from?

0:14:07 reepca eh, I guess it wouldn't be too hard to just use an explicit with-clause and a 'do (incf ...)'

0:14:11 verisimilitude Yes.

0:14:20 verisimilitude You can use the IF clause, say.

0:16:07 reepca I was thinking more along the lines of, suppose that I'm iterating over a sublist (tail of some other list), but I'm given the starting index of said sublist in the list it's part of, and I want to keep track of what the index is in the larget list.

0:16:20 reepca larger*

0:17:09 verisimilitude How does that involve summation?

0:17:38 verisimilitude You could always embed a LOOP inside of another LOOP, if that simplifies things, reepca.

0:18:06 reepca well, the way I would usually go about keeping track of an index in a loop would be 'sum 1 into k' or something like that.

0:18:26 reepca but I don't know how to initialize k to anything other than 0

0:19:13 verisimilitude That isn't the way you want to do that.

0:19:25 verisimilitude Why not use FOR K FROM 0, say?

0:20:00 verisimilitude You can also iterate on the list directly with IN or ON, instead.

0:20:18 verisimilitude Give me an example and I'll show you how I'd do it, reepca.

0:21:10 reepca I guess I hadn't really thought about using multiple FOR clauses. So it would end up looking something like (loop for k from initial-index for x in (nthcdr initial-index list) ...)

0:25:50 verisimilitude You could do better.

0:26:26 verisimilitude That would recalculate X each time, which is wasteful.

0:27:02 verisimilitude Well, disregard that, but I'll still show a better way to do it.

0:27:24 verisimilitude What is K for again, reepca?

0:27:53 reepca k is the index, one moment, I'll pastebin what I'm working on

0:29:27 reepca https://paste.debian.net/1068504/ here's what I've got so far (automating some operating systems homework).

0:32:48 verisimilitude Your FIRST-FIT doesn't need LOOP; I'll show you a proper body for it.

0:36:07 verisimilitude Rather, I'll tell you to look at POSITION, FIND, POSITION-IF, and FIND-IF; these solve half your problem, giving the position or the element, and I've not looked at how you're using FIRST-FIT to see which you actually need; I leave that to you, reepca.

0:36:20 verisimilitude Did this help?

0:39:32 reepca well, the issue there is that while using FIND followed by POSITION would work for FIRST-FIT, it would involve traversing twice.

0:41:49 reepca using FOR to track indices helped, though

0:42:50 verisimilitude I've taken a look at your BEST-FIT now and it can be much simpler.

0:44:20 verisimilitude You're just using this to see if a list contains a number or the closest number larger than it, right?

0:46:06 reepca and to get the position of it in the list. The idea is to then write some code to simulate certain sequences of allocations being made with the various selection methods and generate a nice table.

0:49:59 verisimilitude You could use something such as this, then:

0:49:59 verisimilitude (LOOP WITH P = 0 FOR I FROM 0 FOR E IN LIST

0:49:59 verisimilitude IF (= SIZE E) DO (RETURN (CONS I E)) END

0:49:59 verisimilitude IF (< SIZE E) MAXIMIZE E INTO M AND DO (SETQ P I)

0:50:02 verisimilitude FINALLY (RETURN (CONS P M)))

0:50:11 verisimilitude I've not checked this, beyond a cursory glance, reepca.

0:51:31 verisimilitude Oh, that MAXIMIZE doesn't work, actually, because I unconditionally store the index; in any case, you get the gist of how to approach this.

1:01:19 reepca well, if the MAXIMIZE clause is never executed, then M is unspecified (I want it to be NIL if no appropriate value is found)