[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: loss of abstraction
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>>I would be interested to hear why you might want to associate source
>>location with other types of object.
> For example to report that it obviously has a wrong type, in an
> implementation which tries to infer some types statically.
> E.g. (apply f 5).
I would associate this error with location of the call to apply.
>>(b) You can distinguish small integers by having interned small
>>integers be unboxed[**] and uninterned small integers be boxed.
> This complicates the implementation. It's silly to introduce
> non-canonical representation of integers just for this reason.
I think you are exagerating. If you support boxed bignums, then this
approach does not significantly complicate the implementation.
>>[**] Boxed small integers are not necessarily a serious performance
>>problem if you use a cache of very small integers.
> It's still some performance hit:
> - The cache is much smaller than the range of unboxed numbers
> - Reading the value has to dereference a pointer and use processor
> - There is no single representation used in various places where
> values are known to fit in a machine word, e.g. vector indices
I benchmarked my Scheme with first boxed numbers with a cache and then
with unboxed numbers. I found there was no significant difference. Of
course, it depends on how often you hit the cache. I was using tak,
which can stay completely in the cache.
Dr Alan Watson
Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica
Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México