> On Feb 9, 2024, at 11:59 AM, Al <frm...@mailgw.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose I need a record of a record type myrec, and collections (vectors-of,
> lists-of and hash-tables) with values myrec.
(define-type myrec (struct myrec))
(define-type myrec-vec (vector-of myrec))
(: myrv-ref (myrec-vec fixnum —> myrec)
(define myrv-ref vector-ref)
>
>
> What combination of
>
> * define-record-type (srfi-9, srfi-99, chicken define-record, whatever) and
>
> * (declare type ...)
>
> can I use to inform the compiler that (for collections of myrec) vector-ref
> returns myrec's (likewise list car/cdr, hash-table-ref)? And that it needs
> not emit any instance-type-checking code for objects extracted from such
> collections?
>
>
> Furthermore, how can I see what the compiler thinks of a given identifier?
> I've used 'csc -ot' but it only emits types for some identifiers. Maybe it
> inlines others, I don't really know.
>
>
> Separately, how can I tell the compiler that fields in these records have
> certain types? Add type declarations for the implicitly-defined per-field
> accessors and mutators?
(import typed-records)
(define-record myrec (a : float) (b : symbol))
does this for you
(: make-myrec (float symbol -> (struct myrec)))
(: myrec? (* -> boolean : (struct myrec)))
(: myrec-a ((struct myrec) -> float))
(: myrec-b ((struct myrec) -> symbol))
>
>
> I've tried unwrapping collections of myrec, and also myrec fields, and it
> seems to make a huge difference in the speed of compiled code. Presumably
> because I don't know how to tell the compiler to omit type checking in "safe"
> cases. I know I could use some of the more aggressive optimization levels,
> but I don't really want to compile unsafe code everywhere, just where I'm
> using the correct types.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al
>
>
