Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:48 AM, felix winkelmann wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 6:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure- information". Oh well, one more todo. Is it really necessary to allow accessing the lambda-lists of primitives? The lambda info object is a string - parsing it all the time to figure out calling conventions is ugly at best and incomplete as well, since optional and keyword arguments are not visible (only that optional or rest arguments are at all available). Lambda-info is just a debugging aid, not a reflection mechanism. In the interest of keeping code and heap sizes small I recommend not extending this stuff. Forgot that lambda-info is a string. Having accurate arity would be nice for more sophisticated parameter checking. When taking procedure params verifying the correct param count is an extra level of warm-fuzzy. It keeps the error detection local, rather than somewhen & somewhere else in the computation, far removed from the error site. I would leave accurate "lambda info" as a TRAC ticket. As you state, even for user lambdas, the DSSSL info isn't saved. Leaves open the possibility of a "lambda creation hook" that can be used by some extension to do all sorts of wonderful things. cheers, felix Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 29, 2008 6:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure- > information". Oh well, one more todo. > Is it really necessary to allow accessing the lambda-lists of primitives? The lambda info object is a string - parsing it all the time to figure out calling conventions is ugly at best and incomplete as well, since optional and keyword arguments are not visible (only that optional or rest arguments are at all available). Lambda-info is just a debugging aid, not a reflection mechanism. In the interest of keeping code and heap sizes small I recommend not extending this stuff. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
Thanks for the info, Kon. I've created a ticket to track this: http://trac.callcc.org/ticket/417 For now, I'll just special case for my needs. Cheers, -M On Jan 29, 2008 12:52 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > > Graham Fawcett scripsit: > > > >> Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure > >> information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and > >> maintain a database. > > > > Really only the primitives that are also user-exposed, like + > > but unlike cons (which is not, technically, a primitive in Chicken). > > Yes. By "database" I meant something that maps ##core#primitive > procedures to "full" lambda info. Don't think it practical to change > every use of '(##core#primitive "C_foo")' when a central lookup table > can be built. > > > > > -- > > Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan > > "Difficult do you call it, Sir? [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I wish it were impossible."http://www.ccil.org/ > > ~cowan > > Best Wishes, > Kon > > > > > > ___ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM, John Cowan wrote: Graham Fawcett scripsit: Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and maintain a database. Really only the primitives that are also user-exposed, like + but unlike cons (which is not, technically, a primitive in Chicken). Yes. By "database" I meant something that maps ##core#primitive procedures to "full" lambda info. Don't think it practical to change every use of '(##core#primitive "C_foo")' when a central lookup table can be built. -- Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan "Difficult do you call it, Sir? [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish it were impossible."http://www.ccil.org/ ~cowan Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
Graham Fawcett scripsit: > Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure > information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and > maintain a database. Really only the primitives that are also user-exposed, like + but unlike cons (which is not, technically, a primitive in Chicken). -- Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan "Difficult do you call it, Sir? [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish it were impossible."http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 29, 2008 12:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:18 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > Graham Fawcett scripsit: > > > >> It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though, > > Sometimes you get a useful result: > > > > (procedure-information list) => (list . lst120) > > And sometimes you don't: > > (procedure-information +) => C_plus > > Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure- > information". Oh well, one more todo. Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and maintain a database. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:18 AM, John Cowan wrote: Graham Fawcett scripsit: It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though, Sometimes you get a useful result: (procedure-information list) => (list . lst120) And sometimes you don't: (procedure-information +) => C_plus Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure- information". Oh well, one more todo. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ccil.org/~cowan No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
Graham Fawcett scripsit: > It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though, Sometimes you get a useful result: (procedure-information list) => (list . lst120) And sometimes you don't: (procedure-information +) => C_plus -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ccil.org/~cowan No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Runtime arity?
On Jan 29, 2008 11:28 AM, Mark Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible to determine at run time the arity of function? I'm > thinking something like > > (arity (lambda (x y z) (* x y z))) > => 3 You can use 'procedure-information': (procedure-information (lambda (x y z) (* x y z))) => (? x y z) where (? x y z) is an s-expression that you can parse. It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though, and of course it doesn't tell you whether the procedure returns multiple values. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
