This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 99 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 99 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
From: will@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: why generative? Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:55:35 -0400 (EDT) > Shiro Kawai wrote: > > > > In other words, we make make-rtd behave > > > > functionally, meaning it returns eqv? objects for equivalent > > > > set of arguments. > > > > > > That could be done, but it's more complicated. > > > > Not necessarily. If simplicity is important, you can > > just return a new structure from make-rtd. When comparing > > rtds, the simplest way is to compare element-by-element > > (just like comparing complex numbers, for example. that's > > how "functional" objects should be compared, semantically.) > > Element-by-element comparisons are more complicated than > pointer comparisons, even if you ignore performance. It's not a matter of "which is complicated". Some things should be compared element-by-element semantically, and some things are not. (Of course, some things falls on the border, which some people feel natural to compare element-by-element and others don't). > The performance of records is important. > If programmers can't rely on record accesses to be reasonably > fast, then they'll start to use vectors instead of records > even when records would otherwise be more appropriate. Exactly. > > Another optimization strategy may be that the implementation > > calculates a hash value from rtd fields and cache it in an rtd. > > Even when an integer hash matches, you'd still have to > perform the complicated comparison to confirm the match. Yeah, that was my mistake. We don't even need to calculate a hash value. Make-rtd can create a symbol that encodes the input values that matter (e.g. concatenating canonical representations of each value with a special separator). Such a symbol serves as a unique id. It still requires one pointer dereference compared to the eq?-style pointer comparison. If I'd implement this idea in Gauche, I'd use weak hash table to memoize make-rtd so that semantically equivalent rtds will always be eq?. > Yes. Using the "sufficiently clever implementation" idea > to pretend that performance and implementation complexity > don't matter has gotten language designers into a lot of > trouble in the past, and it did some harm even to the R6RS. I don't think I'm suggesting a "clever implementation". The ideas to reduce the cost of rtd comparisons are nothing close to clever compared to efficient first-class continuations or R6RS equal? procedure. > To programmers, generative record types defined at top level > are equivalent to a non-generative record type defined at > top level, so neither default adds any extra burden for that > common case. Agreed. > For record types that are not defined at top level, it is > unclear whether generative or non-generative definitions are > more common. My intuition says it's likely to depend upon > individual programmers' preferred styles, so no general rule > applies generally. Probably this point is our difference. I often like to use locally defined records to group values semantically, and such record types should be non-generative to avoid overhead. But that's a matter of personal preference, so I don't push this use case particularly. I do see it a big disadvantage that R6RS-style nongenerative uid implies a separate global namespace *semantically*. We've been very careful introducing separate namespaces, and I don't feel like this uid namespace is justified well. Making rtd "functional" is one way to eliminate this separate global namespace. Although SRFI-99 makes it optional to support R6RS semantics, I thought it would be nice if we can explore different options at this time. --shiro