Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
bearophile wrote: Writing working asm is much simpler than... Ya I've actually written ASM GPU shaders in the past. Not the same instruction set as x86 or anything, but I know the basic concept. Though, there *could* be area for automatic optimization here, right? Currently DMD devs are mostly trying to fix bugs, instead of adding optimizations. And as the pure attribute it's not just a matter of optimization. It's a contract between programmer and compiler. If you add "static" and then you use a variable in the enclosing function, you receive a compilation error. This error can't happen if "static-ness" is just an invisible automatic compiler optimization. It's good for such errors to come out, because when you use static you are stating you don't want to use outer function variables. So this is both a guaranteed optimization and a way to avoid using by mistake a variable defined in the enclosing scope. Using unwillingly variables from the outer scopes is a common source of bugs. Well, my point wasn't that any function could receive "static" or purity implicitly, only nested ones. Seeing as how their use scope is very limited.
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
F i L: > Oh you crazy compiler developers. Thinking everyone can read ASM > ;-) I'd love to be able to develop compilers, but I am not that good yet :-) Writing working asm is much simpler than writing efficient asm code (more efficient than compiler generated one, even for SIMD code where compilers are still quite bad). And reading asm is much simpler than writing it. And scanning asm code visually to look for simple things, is simpler than reading and understanding what each asm instruction does. Writing very efficient asm isn't a common skill today, but reading a bit of asm is something you learn in a matter of some days if you have the desire, the time, and the right books. Most asm does is simple arithmetic, updating some CPU flags, and moving variables from here to there, where most CPUs manage the cache levels transparently (manually managed Scratchpad cache memory us uncommon). Modern CPUs have accumulated tons of cruft, but at the base it's easy stuff. > Though, there *could* be area > for automatic optimization here, right? Currently DMD devs are mostly trying to fix bugs, instead of adding optimizations. And as the pure attribute it's not just a matter of optimization. It's a contract between programmer and compiler. If you add "static" and then you use a variable in the enclosing function, you receive a compilation error. This error can't happen if "static-ness" is just an invisible automatic compiler optimization. It's good for such errors to come out, because when you use static you are stating you don't want to use outer function variables. So this is both a guaranteed optimization and a way to avoid using by mistake a variable defined in the enclosing scope. Using unwillingly variables from the outer scopes is a common source of bugs. Bye, bearophile
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 12:35:14 UTC, bearophile wrote: F i L: I sorta figured D would implicitly attribute "static" to nested functions if the function didn't use any variables outside it's scope. Is that not so? I don't think DMD does that. Before assuming DMD performs one optimization, go to read some of the asm it produces. Oh you crazy compiler developers. Thinking everyone can read ASM ;-) Why are you saying it's a good idea to use "static" exactly? Some answers here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=160469 Thanks. Pretty much what I thought. Though, there *could* be area for automatic optimization here, right? I mean, DMD could analyze the nested function and deem it worthy of the same optimizations static nested functions receive, correct?
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
F i L: > I sorta figured D would implicitly attribute "static" to nested > functions if the function didn't use any variables outside it's > scope. Is that not so? I don't think DMD does that. Before assuming DMD performs one optimization, go to read some of the asm it produces. > Why are you saying it's a good idea to use "static" exactly? Some answers here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=160469 Bye, bearophile
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
On Monday, 13 February 2012 at 14:14:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in int a, in int b) pure nothrow { return
cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
I sorta figured D would implicitly attribute "static" to nested
functions if the function didn't use any variables outside it's
scope. Is that not so? Why are you saying it's a good idea to use
"static" exactly?
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
Jos van Uden: On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote: Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions: Why? For optimization, to be sure there's no closure allocation or a second pointer. But also for code correctness, because static functions can't use automatic variables defined in the enclosing function. This makes the code simpler to understand (the pure attribute has a similar purpose, you are sure your global function is not using global mutable variables). Bye, bearophile
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
On 03/09/2012 02:29 PM, Jos van Uden wrote:
On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions:
Why?
Because then you don't have to rely on the compiler to optimize away the
unneeded context pointer parameter. It should be able to do that though.
I don't know if DMD is.
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
On 13-2-2012 15:14, bearophile wrote:
Zach the Mystic:
void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
{
import std.random;
ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions:
Why?
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind
On 02/13/2012 06:01 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote: On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote: Zach the Mystic: Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249 Aren't "pure" and "random" diametrically opposed in a fundamental way? They are. It is "pure" and "pseudo-random" that are not.
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind
On 13 February 2012 17:01, Zach the Mystic wrote: > On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote: >> >> Zach the Mystic: >> >> Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too: >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249 > > > Aren't "pure" and "random" diametrically opposed in a fundamental way? I'd say it was an oxymoron. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind
On 2/13/12 11:21 AM, bearophile wrote: Zach the Mystic: Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249 Aren't "pure" and "random" diametrically opposed in a fundamental way?
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of D "gems" website
On 2/13/12 7:46 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: On 2/13/12 2:43 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: auto u = (a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); Which would make 'u' a template. I'm not sure what the exact syntax was that was requested though. This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u' cannot be assigned a type. David alias (a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b) u; should work. This makes is a case where the discussed syntax "alias defined = definee;" would be helpful. Andrei
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind
Zach the Mystic: > But I'm > pretty sure uniform is NOT a pure function. In fact, generating random > numbers is about as far opposite a "pure" function as you can get, > right? :-) Right, and sorry, I didn't see the function contents. If I don't run the D code you have to assume it's wrong code. Regarding pure random generators, I have asked it too: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5249 Bye, bearophile
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
On 2/13/12 9:14 AM, bearophile wrote:
Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in int a, in int b) pure nothrow { return cast(ubyte)
uniform(a,b); }
You're right. The only advantage to the way I wrote it is, possibly,
it's easier for new people (like myself) to grasp the idea. But I'm
pretty sure uniform is NOT a pure function. In fact, generating random
numbers is about as far opposite a "pure" function as you can get,
right? :-)
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of D "gems" website
On 13/02/2012 14:21, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 2/13/12, David Nadlinger wrote: This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u' cannot be assigned a type. Yeah, the syntax is wrong. I found bear's post and the syntax: alias (x => x ^^ 2) sqrTemplate; So it would be: alias ((a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b)) u; Here 'alias name = expression' syntax helps shed brackets: alias u = (a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); That looks nice IMO.
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of D "gems" website
On 2/13/12, David Nadlinger wrote: > This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u' > cannot be assigned a type. Yeah, the syntax is wrong. I found bear's post and the syntax: alias (x => x ^^ 2) sqrTemplate; So it would be: alias ((a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b)) u;
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of
Zach the Mystic:
> void setRandomColorPair( ref ColorPair cp )
> {
> import std.random;
> ubyte u(int a, int b) { return cast(ubyte) uniform(a,b); }
Where possible it's good to add "static" to nested functions:
static ubyte u(in int a, in int b) pure nothrow { return cast(ubyte)
uniform(a,b); }
-
Andrej Mitrovic:
> It would be better if you didn't have to specify the argument types. I
> think bear asked for templated lambdas, so this could eventually
> become:
Some related requests (one and half of them is by me):
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7357
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7308
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Bye,
bearophile
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of D "gems" website
On 2/13/12 2:43 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: auto u = (a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); Which would make 'u' a template. I'm not sure what the exact syntax was that was requested though. This could never work without major changes to the language, because 'u' cannot be assigned a type. David
Re: The One-Letter Nested Function - a sample article for some kind of D "gems" website
With 2.058 the single-letter function can become: auto u = (int a, int b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); It's not much of savings in typing. The only problem is I can't seem to make it static: static u = (int a, int b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); Error: non-constant nested delegate literal expression __lambda1 It would be better if you didn't have to specify the argument types. I think bear asked for templated lambdas, so this could eventually become: auto u = (a, b) => cast(ubyte)uniform(a, b); Which would make 'u' a template. I'm not sure what the exact syntax was that was requested though.
