[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta]
From: |
Taylan Kammer |
Subject: |
Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta] |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:21:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 |
During the R7RS-small discussion, I remember Will Clinger suggesting to
keep (eqv? proc1 proc2) => #t but unspecifying it for eq?. Would that
help in Guile's case? I don't remember the exact optimization he
suggested this for.
- Taylan
On 14.01.2020 17:47, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> It might be reasonable to keep the patch for now in order not to
> introduce novel behavior this short before the 3.0 release.
>
> But especially in light of Andy's work, I do regret introducing
> procedure-properties. It's a more LISPy feature than Schemey. Did you
> see Andy's argument about procedure equality below?
>
> I would have preferred to postpone the release and drop procedure
> equality, procedure-properties etc. It can be handy and convenient, yes,
> but there is a reason why R6RS didn't require (eq? p p) -> #t...
>
> Best regards,
> Mikael
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:37 PM Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Stefan Israelsson Tampe* <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>>
> Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:23 PM
> Subject: Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta]
> To: Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>>
>
>
> This is how it always have been in guile, without this patch you
> cannot use procedure-property, use a function as a key to hash maps
> etc. If this patch goes you need to forbid usage
> of procedures as keys to hashmap, nuke procedure properties and
> friends or mark it as internal to avoid luring schemers into using a
> faulty method. This patch improves the use of higher order functions
> not risk it. For example I often classify functions into different
> categories and maintain this information as a property on the
> function via a hashmap. This is a quite natural way of programming.
> Without it you need
> to put the procedures in a datastructure and track that
> datastructure that will uglify a lot of code. It is manageable but
> when the opposite is similarly speeded code but much nicer and
> enjoyable code with absolutely no risk in
> higher order functionality countrary as you state (because higher
> order worked flawlessly before in guile and the patch is restoring
> that).
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:07 PM Mikael Djurfeldt
> <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> Hmm... it seems like both Stefan and you have interpreted my
> post exactly the opposite way compared to how it was meant. :)
>
> I completely agree that procedure equality is not strongly
> connected to the first citizen-ness.
>
> What I wanted to say is that I probably prefer you to *reverse*
> the recent patch because I prefer to have good optimization also
> when procedures are referenced by value in more than one
> non-operator position. I prefer this over having (eq? p p) => #t
> for the reasons I stated.
>
> Best regards,
> Mikael
>
> Den tis 14 jan. 2020 15:33Andy Wingo <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> skrev:
>
> On Tue 14 Jan 2020 13:18, Mikael Djurfeldt
> <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> writes:
>
> > I probably don't have a clue about what you are talking
> about (or at
> > least hope so), but this---the "eq change"---sounds scary
> to me.
> >
> > One of the *strengths* of Scheme is that procedures are
> first class
> > citizens. As wonderfully show-cased in e.g. SICP this can
> be used to
> > obtain expressive and concise programs, where procedures
> can occur
> > many times as values outside operator position.
> >
> > I would certainly *not* want to trade in an important
> optimization
> > step in those cases to obtain intuitive procedure
> equality. The risk
> > is then that you would tend to avoid passing around
> procedures as
> > values.
>
> Is this true?
>
> (eq? '() '())
>
> What about this?
>
> (eq? '(a) '(a))
>
> And yet, are datums not first-class values? What does being
> first-class
> have to do with it?
>
> Does it matter whether it's eq? or eqv?
>
> What about:
>
> (eq? (lambda () 10) (lambda () 10))
>
> What's the difference?
>
> What's the difference in the lambda calculus between "\x.f
> x" and "f"?
>
> What if in a partial evaluator, you see a `(eq? x y)`, and
> you notice
> that `x' is bound to a lambda expression? Can you say
> anything about
> the value of the expression?
>
> Does comparing procedures for equality mean anything at all?
> https://cs-syd.eu/posts/2016-01-17-function-equality-in-haskell
>
> Anyway :) All that is a bit of trolling on my part. What I
> mean to say
> is that instincts are tricky when it comes to object
> identity, equality,
> equivalence, and especially all of those combined with
> procedures. The
> R6RS (what can be more Schemely than a Scheme standard?)
> makes this
> clear.
>
> All that said, with the recent patch, I believe that Guile 3.0's
> behavior preserves your intuitions. Bug reports very welcome!
>
> Andy
>
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], (continued)
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Mikael Djurfeldt, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Andy Wingo, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Andy Wingo, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Mikael Djurfeldt, 2020/01/14
- Message not available
- Fwd: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Mikael Djurfeldt, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta],
Taylan Kammer <=
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
- Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Andy Wingo, 2020/01/14
Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2020/01/14
RE: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta], dsmich, 2020/01/14