Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 26 Sep 2015 17:31 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 29 Sep 2015 02:43 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 29 Sep 2015 09:17 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 29 Sep 2015 11:00 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 30 Sep 2015 03:16 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 09:37 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 30 Sep 2015 14:02 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 01 Oct 2015 08:35 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 29 Sep 2015 11:36 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 01 Oct 2015 12:53 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 30 Sep 2015 03:32 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 08:56 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 30 Sep 2015 09:38 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 09:46 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 10:03 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Evan Hanson 30 Sep 2015 11:54 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 22:34 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Per Bothner 29 Sep 2015 11:12 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? John Cowan 29 Sep 2015 12:07 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Per Bothner 29 Sep 2015 12:47 UTC
Re: Community preference so far? Alex Shinn 30 Sep 2015 09:15 UTC

Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 30 Sep 2015 08:56 UTC

Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I find thunk arguments pretty weird. Continuation passing style is
>     great and all but it's not how we want to write our code, is it?
>     Returning multiple values is simpler.
>
> I prefer CPS to MV in general, especially since MV are broken in
> Scheme.

I don't see how MV are "broken."  It just seems like slander used by
those who dislike their semantics. :-)

I use them in https://github.com/TaylanUB/scheme-bytestructures
extensively and am grateful they're there, since otherwise I would need
to wrap the data-flow between some procedures in a record type of which
I'd be allocating a lot of instances, making performance suffer unless
the host Scheme can optimize that.  Or I could try restructuring the
whole code, which at the moment is very clean.

> Personal preferences aside, in this case,
>
> (hash-table-ref ht k (lambda () expr))
>
> is shorter and cleaner than
>
> (receive (val found?) (hashtable-lookup ht k)
>   (if found? val expr))

Can you give a couple real-life examples on what 'expr' typically is?
I'll base my judgment depending on that.

Note by the way that returning a found? Boolean is more flexible.  If
your code should diverge entirely based on whether a value was found or
not, then you are forced to write a whole body of code in the lambda
operand to hash-table-ref and do a non-local exit at its end.

Also, I just decided to make the 'default' argument to hashtable-ref
optional, erroring when it's not there and when the lookup fails.
That's probably a very common use-case, covering SRFI-69/125's
possibility of doing: (hash-table-ref ht k error).

Note also that there is hashtable-intern! for when you want to compute a
default value for a key, but avoid doing that potentially heavy
computation when there's already an association for the key.

Given the above two use-cases, I only see one use-case remaining for the
thunk, which is doing a nontrivial computation when no value was found
but not putting the result into the hash table; for that case you indeed
have to make your code marginally more verbose with receive/let-values
and an if, but given the problem mentioned three paragraphs ago (the
Boolean is more flexible), I see that as acceptable.

>     What's the advantage of splitting it to a different SRFI in this
>     case?
>
> Because it's hard enough to get hash tables right without it,
> and there seem to be a lot of open issues with weak refs as
> it is.

Can you point out those issues?

> Also, given hash-tables and weak refs/ephemerons separately,
> you can always implement weak hash-tables by using a weak
> pair as both key and value, and making the hash and equality
> functions consider only the key of the pair.
>
> It thus seems preferable to leave these orthogonal concepts
> separate for now.

They might be orthogonal in some strict sense, but I wouldn't want us to
end up in a situation like with call/cc and exceptions.  (It used to be
claimed that exceptions can be implemented with call/cc, which we found
out to be impractical.)

I will drop weak/ephemeral semantics once I know that there are issues
with their current specification in SRFI-126 and that we can't solve
those issues easily.

>     Fold is called sum here since it's unordered.
>
> That's a really confusing name.

Recommendations welcome, but in any case users should be discouraged
from seeing the procedure like a typical fold operation which has a
specified order.  The argument order is also different from a typical
fold operation.

Note that this was previously discussed in the "new names for some
operations" thread of the SRFI-126 ML.  Long story short, we really want
to discourage coding patterns that lead to Heisenbugs.

>     Pop! does not behave like the SRFI-125 pop!, and a push!
>     equivalent for this pop! makes no sense (it's just set!).
>
> I don't like that definition of SRFI-125 pop!.
> I've used push! but perhaps not often enough to include here.

Oh, I just noticed that SRFI-125 and 126 pop! are now the same.

It's unfortunate that their semantics differ from Gauche's
hash-table-pop!, but really, this semantics is exactly what you would
expect from something called hash-table-pop!.

The procedure first came up in the "choose-and-remove! operation" thread
and there was quick consensus on "pop!" being the proper name for it.

The other push/pop could be called hash-table-push-value! and
hash-table-pop-value!.  If you have a strong opinion that these are
commonly used operations, I can add them under misc. procedures.  WDYT?

>     Inc!/dec! are pretty much just:
>
>     (hashtable-update! ht k inc 0)
>     (hashtable-update! ht k dec 1)
>
> Since inc and dec are not defined (and are usually called add1
> and sub1), you have to write it out as a lambda. Either way,
> these super common, I'd rather have them predefined.

Add1 and sub1 are similarly trivial definitions, but if you say they're
so common, then I have no problem adding them under misc. procedures.
Will do in a moment.

Taylan