Re: [racket-users] Some stuff about "case".
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM Jens Axel Søgaard wrote: > > Den man. 1. jun. 2020 kl. 20.53 skrev Christopher Lemmer Webber > : > > > I think `case` were more important before `match` arrived. > If you want to see how `case` can be implemented without hash-tables, look at > William D Clinger's paper: > > http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/07-clinger.pdf > > /Jens Axel The Racket implementation of case is based on Clinger's paper. And Clinger's approach does, in fact, use hash tables, except that in the Larceny implementation, the hash table fetch is open-coded by case (IIRC), which is not the case in Racket (unless it gets inlined by the compiler in the CS version, I suppose, though I don't know if that's actually possible). - Jon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAKfDxxx1rBXHD%2B9sLH4x6kBJoE2SbKHKp%3D_PGWCZVmqjAO7Qiw%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [racket-users] Some stuff about "case".
Den man. 1. jun. 2020 kl. 20.53 skrev Christopher Lemmer Webber <
cweb...@dustycloud.org>:
> As I started typing this email and looking into the definition of case,
> I realized my assumptions are wrong.
>
> What I needed: something like case which dispatches on symbols, except
> not auto-quoting the arguments... I needed to evaluate them from the
> lexical environment. So:
>
> (let ([x 'foo])
> (caseish 'foo
> [(x) 'got-foo]
> [('x) 'got-quote-x])) ; => 'got-foo
>
Sounds like `evcase`:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/mzlib/mzlib_etc.html#%28form._%28%28lib._mzlib%2Fetc..rkt%29._evcase%29%29
> I figured: case is fast, and I'm pretty sure semi-magical... my
> intuitive sense was that it did some smart things on a compiler level
> that would probably be anything I'd hand-code (which would either use an
> alist or an immutable hashtable).
I think `case` were more important before `match` arrived.
If you want to see how `case` can be implemented without hash-tables, look
at
William D Clinger's paper:
http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/07-clinger.pdf
/Jens Axel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABefVgypomV3a%3DfcgyBtrvpyAS1FeH4YR3k3zEKR9One3Niu5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
[racket-users] Some stuff about "case".
As I started typing this email and looking into the definition of case,
I realized my assumptions are wrong.
What I needed: something like case which dispatches on symbols, except
not auto-quoting the arguments... I needed to evaluate them from the
lexical environment. So:
(let ([x 'foo])
(caseish 'foo
[(x) 'got-foo]
[('x) 'got-quote-x])) ; => 'got-foo
I figured: case is fast, and I'm pretty sure semi-magical... my
intuitive sense was that it did some smart things on a compiler level
that would probably be anything I'd hand-code (which would either use an
alist or an immutable hashtable). So I started writing up an email
asking if such a thing worked... then I remembered, this is a ~lisp,
jumping straight to definition is part of the scene... so I did that.
I... was wrong! From the case macro:
;; Symbol and "other" dispatch is either sequential or
;; hash-table-based, depending on how many constants we
;; have. Assume that `alist' does not map anything to `#f'.
(define (dispatch-hashable tmp-stx alist make-hashX else-exp)
(if (< (length alist) *hash-threshold*)
#`(case/sequential #,tmp-stx
#,@(map (λ (x)
#`[(#,(car x)) #,(cdr x)])
alist)
[else #,else-exp])
(let ([tbl (make-hashX alist)])
(if (literal-expression? else-exp)
#`(hash-ref #,tbl #,tmp-stx (lambda () #,else-exp))
#`(or (hash-ref #,tbl #,tmp-stx (lambda () #f))
#,else-exp)
Am I reading that right? Here I was assuming writing something like
case was for cool kids and I'd never pull such a thing off right.
But... now it looks like, oh, it's actually just using an alist or an
immutable hashtable... same as I would.
So I almost trashed this email, but thought I'd send it anyway because
a) either maybe it's interesting to someone or b) actually maybe I'm
misreading and case really is smarter / more performant and I'm just
missing it...!
- Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/87imgavcqj.fsf%40dustycloud.org.
