Can we make a faster Boole implementation?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.



list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
(*0.066533,Null*)


Compare that to Boole.



AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
l2===l3
(*0.262770,Null*)
(* True *)


It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.



boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
list=True,True,False,True,False;
boole[list]
(*True,True,False,True,False*)


Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?






performance-tuning function-construction core-language







share|improve this question



























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.



    list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
    AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
    (*0.066533,Null*)


    Compare that to Boole.



    AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
    l2===l3
    (*0.262770,Null*)
    (* True *)


    It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.



    boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
    list=True,True,False,True,False;
    boole[list]
    (*True,True,False,True,False*)


    Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?






    performance-tuning function-construction core-language







    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.



      list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
      AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
      (*0.066533,Null*)


      Compare that to Boole.



      AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
      l2===l3
      (*0.262770,Null*)
      (* True *)


      It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.



      boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
      list=True,True,False,True,False;
      boole[list]
      (*True,True,False,True,False*)


      Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?






      performance-tuning function-construction core-language







      share|improve this question















      I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.



      list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
      AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
      (*0.066533,Null*)


      Compare that to Boole.



      AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
      l2===l3
      (*0.262770,Null*)
      (* True *)


      It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.



      boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
      list=True,True,False,True,False;
      boole[list]
      (*True,True,False,True,False*)


      Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?






      performance-tuning function-construction core-language




      performance-tuning function-construction core-language






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Chris K

      5,99221739




      5,99221739










      asked 2 hours ago









      Ted Ersek

      2,8441230




      2,8441230




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:



          TracePrint[boole[list], _With]



          With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]



          True, True, False, True, False




          One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:



          Clear[boole]
          boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];


          Then:



          boole[list]



          1, 1, 0, 1, 0







          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
            – Ted Ersek
            1 hour ago


















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:



          boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray





          share|improve this answer




















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "387"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f184765%2fcan-we-make-a-faster-boole-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest

















            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:



            TracePrint[boole[list], _With]



            With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]



            True, True, False, True, False




            One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:



            Clear[boole]
            boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];


            Then:



            boole[list]



            1, 1, 0, 1, 0







            share|improve this answer




















            • Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
              – Ted Ersek
              1 hour ago















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:



            TracePrint[boole[list], _With]



            With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]



            True, True, False, True, False




            One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:



            Clear[boole]
            boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];


            Then:



            boole[list]



            1, 1, 0, 1, 0







            share|improve this answer




















            • Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
              – Ted Ersek
              1 hour ago













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:



            TracePrint[boole[list], _With]



            With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]



            True, True, False, True, False




            One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:



            Clear[boole]
            boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];


            Then:



            boole[list]



            1, 1, 0, 1, 0







            share|improve this answer












            The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:



            TracePrint[boole[list], _With]



            With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]



            True, True, False, True, False




            One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:



            Clear[boole]
            boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];


            Then:



            boole[list]



            1, 1, 0, 1, 0








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            Carl Woll

            62.7k281161




            62.7k281161











            • Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
              – Ted Ersek
              1 hour ago

















            • Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
              – Ted Ersek
              1 hour ago
















            Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
            – Ted Ersek
            1 hour ago





            Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
            – Ted Ersek
            1 hour ago











            up vote
            1
            down vote













            See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:



            boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray





            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:



              boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray





              share|improve this answer






















                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:



                boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray





                share|improve this answer












                See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:



                boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray






                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 10 mins ago









                Mr.Wizard♦

                228k294671023




                228k294671023



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f184765%2fcan-we-make-a-faster-boole-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest
































































                    Comments

                    Post a Comment

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                    Read more

                    Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
                    Read more

                    One-line joke

                    A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
                    Read more