## digitalmars.D.learn - how implement takeWhile

- "bioinfornatics" <bioinfornatics gmail.com> Aug 06 2012
- "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Aug 06 2012
- "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Aug 06 2012
- Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> Aug 06 2012
- "Tobias Pankrath" <tobias pankrath.net> Aug 06 2012
- Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> Aug 06 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Aug 06 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Aug 06 2012
- "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Aug 06 2012

Dear, 1/ i would like have a code near as this haskell code: fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs) main = do print $ sum (filter even (takeWhile (<4000000) fibs)) Ii know in D: - auto fib = recurrence!("a[n-1] + a[n-2]")(1, 1); - std.algorithm.until - std.algorithm.filler - std.algorithm.reduce - std.range.InputRange.popFront - std.range.take - std.array.appender but i do not see how to these feature together to have a code close to the haskell code. Someone? 2/ Someone know to generate a fibonacci list directly with a lambda syyntax and not from string ("a[n-1] + a[n-2]") ? thanks

Aug 06 2012

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:53:18 +0200, bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics gmail.com> wrote:Dear, 1/ i would like have a code near as this haskell code: fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs) main = do print $ sum (filter even (takeWhile (<4000000) fibs)) Ii know in D: - auto fib = recurrence!("a[n-1] + a[n-2]")(1, 1); - std.algorithm.until - std.algorithm.filler - std.algorithm.reduce - std.range.InputRange.popFront - std.range.take - std.array.appender but i do not see how to these feature together to have a code close to the haskell code. Someone? 2/ Someone know to generate a fibonacci list directly with a lambda syyntax and not from string ("a[n-1] + a[n-2]") ? thanks

This is what you want, isn't it? recurrence!((a,n)=>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=>a>=40000)() -- Simen

Aug 06 2012

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:59:29 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kjaras gmail.com> wrote:This is what you want, isn't it? recurrence!((a,n)=>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=>a>=40000)()

That is, the meat of it. The full line: writeln(recurrence!((a,n)=>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=>a>=40000)().filter!(a=>a%2==0)().reduce!((a,b)=>a+b)()) -- Simen

Aug 06 2012

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:15 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: [=E2=80=A6]writeln(recurrence!((a,n)=3D>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=3D>a>=3D40000)(=

Do a JVM backend to D and D could wipe the floor with Scala :-) --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

Aug 06 2012

On Monday, 6 August 2012 at 13:10:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:15 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: […]writeln(recurrence!((a,n)=>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=>a>=40000)().filter!(a=>a%2==0)().reduce!((a,b)=>a+b)())

Do a JVM backend to D and D could wipe the floor with Scala :-)

Why is that? Can't Scala do the same?

Aug 06 2012

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 15:13 +0200, Tobias Pankrath wrote:On Monday, 6 August 2012 at 13:10:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:15 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: [=E2=80=A6]writeln(recurrence!((a,n)=3D>a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1,1).until!(a=3D>a>=3D4000=

Do a JVM backend to D and D could wipe the floor with Scala :-)

Why is that? Can't Scala do the same?

Scala can definitely do the same, possibly more, but it's syntax gets annoying and compilation time is horrendous. Of course it will have an Eclipse plugin that works fairly soon, which will probably cement it's standing as successor to Java. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

Aug 06 2012

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> wrote:Do a JVM backend to D and D could wipe the floor with Scala :-)

Why is that? Can't Scala do the same?

Scala can definitely do the same, possibly more, but it's syntax gets annoying and compilation time is horrendous.

From what I know of Scala, for the OP qustion the syntax would be

compilation time, I didn't know that. Do you happen to have some personal experience on this? (this is not a quip, just an honest question). What I'd like to know and may test myself is: is there any speed difference in this functional-oriented D code and a more standard (C-ish) way to obtain the same result? As for the OP question, use std.algo.until as your takeWhile, as Simen showed. I also coded takeWhile in a D a few years ago, it's not difficult and is a good exercice in range coding.

Aug 06 2012

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> wrote:What I'd like to know and may test myself is: is there any speed difference in this functional-oriented D code and a more standard (C-ish) way to obtain the same result?

Here it is. Answer: no noticeable difference. The functional way also works at CT, that's great. Of course, the functional code is (to my eyes) easier to read, easier to debug and easier to modify. import std.stdio; import std.algorithm; import std.range; void main() { enum max = int.max; // C-ish long a,b, temp, sum; a = 1; b = 1; while ( b < max) { if (b % 2 == 0) sum += b; // filter and sum temp = b; b = a + b; a = temp; } writeln(sum); // Haskell-ish writeln(recurrence!((a,n) => a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1L,1L) .until!(a => a >= max)() .filter!(a => a%2 == 0)() .reduce!((a,b) => a+b)()); // Works at CT too! pragma(msg, recurrence!((a,n) => a[n-1]+a[n-2])(1L,1L) .until!(a => a >= max)() .filter!(a => a%2 == 0)() .reduce!((a,b) => a+b)()); }

Aug 06 2012

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:49:19 +0200, Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> wrote:What I'd like to know and may test myself is: is there any speed difference in this functional-oriented D code and a more standard (C-ish) way to obtain the same result?

Here it is. Answer: no noticeable difference.

Great, but is that only because it goes too quickly anyways? I changed it a bit to use BigInt in both places, and for a max of 2^512, I got the following numbers, fairly consistently: C: 139288 ns Haskell: 165104 ns About 20% difference. Not bad.The functional way also works at CT, that's great. Of course, the functional code is (to my eyes) easier to read, easier to debug and easier to modify.

Indeed. -- Simen

Aug 06 2012