That's got it.
Thanks loads,
Kevin
Search found 6 matches
- Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:20 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Yet another basic question
- Replies: 7
- Views: 23312
- Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:35 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Yet another basic question
- Replies: 7
- Views: 23312
Re: Yet another basic question
I think that's it. Can you give me a quick and dirty example of how to use time-apply? It seems to want two arguments (first a procedure, then a list). It's not following the same form as "runtime."
Many thanks
Many thanks
- Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:31 am
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Yet another basic question
- Replies: 7
- Views: 23312
Re: Yet another basic question
I'm using Dr. Scheme.
- Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:38 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Yet another basic question
- Replies: 7
- Views: 23312
Yet another basic question
Greetings. I'm working my way through "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and am working on a program that calls for the use of the primitive "runtime" as a way to measure how long it took the computer to calculate the answer. Unfortunately, my version of Scheme d...
- Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:01 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Really, really basic question (negative numbers)
- Replies: 2
- Views: 10450
Re: Really, really basic question (negative numbers)
Ah. I told you it was a basic question.
Many thanks. Works like a charm.
Kevin
Many thanks. Works like a charm.
Kevin
- Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:11 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Really, really basic question (negative numbers)
- Replies: 2
- Views: 10450
Really, really basic question (negative numbers)
Greetings. For what I'm sure is a really basic reason, I can't get negative numbers to work. I keep getting error messages about an undefined identifier. A simple example (finding the absolute value of an integer) that's copied directly out of SICP: (define (ab x) (cond ((< x 0) (-x)) (else x))) > (...