Topic: remove elements from a list with identifier of sub-list (recursive)

[kdub_nz]

well were you expecting anything else? ...try using foreach instead and you will really smoke us.

MP, quick question; I never quite understood what "relative speed for ... iteration(s):" meant? Is that the time per call?

Means that (NODOUPS BLAH) is 22.5 times faster than   (DOIT BLAH)

ie  1031:23203

[CAB]

I'm pretty sure WHILE is faster than FOREACH.

In my test gile's was faster.

[gile]

If non recursive functions are allowed, here's mine

Code: [Select]

(defun gile2 (lst / item tmp result)
  (while lst
    (if (numberp (setq item (car lst)))
      (if (not (vl-position item tmp))
(setq tmp (cons item tmp))
      )
      (setq result (append tmp result)
    tmp    (list item)
      )
    )
    (setq lst (cdr lst))
  )
  (reverse (append tmp result))
)

[CAB]

Nice Gile.
My results.

   (GILE2 LST)............................1592 / 2.15 <fastest>
    (GILE LST).............................1632 / 2.09
    (NODOUPS LST)..........................1683 / 2.03
    (MP_FOO LST)...........................2504 / 1.36
    (REMOVE_DUPS_IN-BETWEEN-CHARS LST).....3415 / 1.00 <slowest>

Not sure why my test are different.

[Lee Mac]

<Naive Question>:

Do you all have the same LISP to test the speed of these things?

[MP]

Everyone except KB. 

[uncoolperson]

Everyone except KB. 

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=3952.0
is the one I'm using

[JohnK]

Means that (NODOUPS BLAH) is 22.5 times faster than   (DOIT BLAH)

ie  1031:23203

Ah, i see it. That makes total sense now that you put it that way...thanx!

[Lee Mac]

Everyone except KB. 

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=3952.0
is the one I'm using

Thanks, I'll take a look

[kdub_nz]

Everyone except KB. 

Yep

I have mine calculating the  fastest as base 1 unit, and all athers with a higher relative index representing how much longer it takes to run..

ie if the fastest is 1 and the slowest is 12.6 you know it takes 12.6 times as long to run

but that's just me

[JohnK]

That sounds more logical, is that posted anywhere KB?

[kdub_nz]

That sounds more logical, is that posted anywhere KB?

Code: [Select]

                ;;=================================================================
                 ;;
                 ;;  Output:
                 ;;
                 ;;      Elapsed milliseconds / relative speed for 32768 iteration(s):
                 ;;
                 ;;    (+ 1 1.0).......1452 / 1.1152 <slowest>
                 ;;    (+ 1.0 1.0).....1412 / 1.0845
                 ;;    (+ 1 1).........1332 / 1.023
                 ;;    (1+ 1)..........1302 / 1 <fastest>
                 ;;
                 ;; Mods by KWB 2005 to display the smallest time with the smallest ratio
                 ;;
                 ;;=================================================================

I've also modified this .. which [you] may want to revert to the original

Code: [Select]

  (defun _main
         (statements / boundary iterations timings slowest fastest lsetlen rsetlen index count)
    (setq boundary 500 ; originally 1000 [kwb]
          iterations 1
    )
;; < ... big snip ...  >

[MP]

That sounds more logical

Doesn't to me. I think in terms of "Function A is x times faster than function B". Guess that makes me weird. :ugly:

[uncoolperson]

Guess that makes me weird. :ugly:

yeah... only that

[JohnK]

That sounds more logical

Doesn't to me. I think in terms of "Function A is x times faster than function B". Guess that makes me weird. :ugly:

Sorry, I didnt mean that statement as an insult.


*lol*