[zzamboni(telegram)] @hhanche inspried by your with-stty function, I started a new module: https://github.com/zzamboni/elvish-modules/blob/master/tty.org
[zzamboni(telegram)] (unrelated question: I updated my GitHub avatar months ago, but the previews produced by Telegram still have the old one - anyone knows how to force a refresh?)
[hhanche(telegram)] 👍🏻 (re @zzamboni: @hhanche inspried by your with-stty function, I started a new module: https://github.com/zzamboni/elvish-modules/blob/master/tty.org)
Yay! The hosted goreportcard report for Elvish now has fewer spurious errors. See gojp/goreportcard#324.
[xiaqqaix(telegram)] @krader1971 Nice, thanks for reporting it to goreportcard
[xiaqqaix(telegram)] Plus, getting keys from map iteration is inconsistent with list iteration, which yields values, not indices
This is gonna sound like a stupid question, but I was messing around and noticed something odd to me. When I do something like this
for i := 0; i < 1000000000; i++ {} in GO, it finishes on my machine in about 1 second. When I do i = 0; for x [(range 0 1000000001)] { i = (+ $i 1) } in Elvish, it horribly slow. Seems like it would take hours if not days to finish. I figured it would be a big difference because of compiled vs. interpreted, but not this big. Converting everything to float64 wouldn't cause that much of a difference would it?
Another significant difference is your Elvish version is constructing a huge array. That is going to be expensive.
I just noticed that my list using
range actually blows up before 1 billion. I was comparing that with while using smaller values and time. I waited a few hours with the while version to complete to no avail.
Your Elvish version is not idiomatic Elvish. Probably the fastest Elvish equivalent of your simple Go loop is this:
range 0 1000001 | each [x]{ }. That loop is 1000 times smaller than yours and takes 2.6 seconds on my laptop. So ~0.7 hours if I ran it with your original range.
Note that the first time you use the
+ operator i is a float64.
And doing
< $i 1000000001 will convert the constant to a float64 implicitly so there doing it explicitly won't help and will probably be slightly slower due to the need to introduce another output capture.
Fun fact: You can embed underscores in number literals. When I updated the https://elv.sh/ref/language.html#number documentation a while back I documented the new prefixes (e.g.,
0x, 0o, 0b) but neglected to document that number literals can also contain underscores for readability; e.g., 1_000_000_001 from the earlier discussion.
[zzamboni(telegram)] That's what I do 😉
[xiaqqaix(telegram)] In fact, the subcommand pattern is just a way to namespace commands. Elvish has modules for that.
[zzamboni(telegram)] I even suggested allowing the separation with a space once, some time ago: elves/elvish#501
[zzamboni(telegram)] (I agree not a good idea BTW)
@krader1961 After looking at my PR #1084, should I commit the changes to that PR, or open a new one? I have the appropriate changes ready I think, just not sure how to go about sending them in.
Since this is your first, non-trivial, change to the Elvish project you should expect a lot of feedback requeuesting modifications to your proposed change.
Btw, is there something in the testing framework that allows me to choose a test on the condition of which OS the test is being ran on? The failed test on windows was hard for me to see coming, and I wasn't entirely sure how to remedy it without tossing out the offending test.
[shaunak1508(telegram)] Please check out my harmonica cover of the Elvis Song, Can't Help Falling in Love:
https://youtu.be/81eD0BzE98M
https://youtu.be/81eD0BzE98M
[zzamboni(telegram)] @shaunak1508 wrong group, this is about the Elvish shell, not Elvis
[mueslix(telegram)] 😂
[Kingsy(irc)] havent had a chance to debug it yet. but I thought you might know