In the source code for javac, I have seen idioms of this form:
Type t = ...;
// Now let's say I want to, say, get its supertype. The idiom seems to be:
Object o = t.tsym.type.supertype_field;
// ...rather than:
Object o = t.supertype_field;
I understand that certain Types and Symbols are circular dependencies. That is, every non-error ClassType, for example, has a ClassSymbol, and every non-error ClassSymbol has a ClassType, even though logically types precede symbols (during construction everything is twiddled to point to each other).
I also understand hazily that there may be various errors during compilation such that a given Type may actually be an ErrorType and I suppose may have different information associated with it.
What kind of canonicalizing is being accomplished by saying t.tsym.type.something rather than just t.something?
If (to reduce mental load) I pretend that errors never exist (so all, say, ClassTypes have ClassSymbols and vice versa), when is there a substantive difference between accessing t.something and t.tsym.type.something?
There is a concrete example in the supertype(Type) method.
Related
A quick screenshot with the point of interest:
There are 2 questions here.
This happens in a tight loop. The 12.8% code is this:
{
this with Side = side; PositionPrice = position'; StopLossPrice = sl'; TakeProfitPrice = tp'; Volume = this.Volume + this.Quantity * position'
}
This object is passed around a lot and has 23 fields so it's not tiny. It looks like immutability is great for stable code, but it's horrible for performance.
Since this recursive loop is run in parallel, I need to store it's context variables in an object.
I am looking for a general idea of what makes sense, not something specific to that code because I have a few tight loops with a bunch of math which I need to profile as well. I am sure I'll find the same pattern in several places.
The flaw here is that I store both the context for the calculations and its variables in a singe type that gets passed in the loop. As the variable fields get updated, the whole object has to be recreated.
What would make sense here (in general for this type of situations)?
make the fields that can change mutable. In this case, that means keeping the type as is (23 fields) and make some fields mutable (only 5 fields get regularly changed)
move the mutable fields to their own type to have a general context object and one holding all the variables. In this case, that means having a context with (23 - 5 fields) and a separate 5 fields type
make the mutable fields variables and move them out of the type. In this case, these 5 fields would be passed as variables in the recursive loop?
and for the second question:
I have no idea what the 10.0% line with get_Tag is. I have nothing called 'Tag' in the code, so I assume that's a dotnet internal thing.
I have a type called Side and there is a field with the same name used in the loop, but what is the 'Tag' part?
What I would suggest is not to modify your existing immutable type at all. Instead, create a new type with mutable fields that is only used within your tight loop. If the type leaves that loop, convert it back to your immutable type (assuming you don't need a copy to go through the rest of your program with every iteration).
get_Tag in this case is likely the auto-generated get-only property on a discriminated union, it's just how the F# compiler represents this sort of type in CLR. The property can most easily be seen when looking at F# code from C#, here's a great page on F# decompiled:
https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/fsharp-decompiled/#unions
For the performance issues I can only offer some suggestions:
If you can constrain the context object to your code only, then try making a mutable version and see which effect it has.
You mention that the context object is quite large, is it possible to split it up?
I am working on getting rid of shortstring.
One of the many places shortstring is currently used within our programs is in records.
Alot of these records are kept in AVL trees.
The AVL tree used is a generic one, holding a pointer to a number of bytes (ElemSize), which have worked well so far.
The memory for each record in the AVL tree is allocated with GetMem, and copied with Move.
However, with string being a pointer to a reference-counted structure, copying back the memory to a record no longer works, as the sting referenced is often freed (automatically by reference count).
With only a pointer and a size of the "data block", I assume it is not possible to have the reference count of the strings increased.
I'm looking for a way to get the reference count of the stings to be taken into account when storing the record in a AVL tree.
Can I pass the record type to the tree constructor, then cast the pointer to this type and thus get the references increased? Or a similar fix, where I can isolate the changes to primarily be in the AVL unit and calls to it's constructor.
Current code for allocation of space to store the record in AVL; XData is a pointer to the record to be stored:
New(RootPtr); { create new memory space }
GetMem(RootPtr^.TreeData, ElemSize);
WITH RootPtr^ DO BEGIN
{ copy data }
Move(XData^, RootPtr^.TreeData^, ElemSize);
In essence the question you are asking is:
How can I allocate, copy and deallocate a record when all I know about its type is its size?
The simple answer is that you can use GetMem, Move and FreeMem provided that the record does not contain managed types. You wish to work with records that contain Delphi strings, which are managed. And so your current approach using GetMem and Move does not suffice.
There are plenty of ways to solve this. You could write your own code to do reference counting, so long as you knew where in the record the managed types were. I don't recommend this. You could make your user data be a class and use polymorphism to help.
The option I'd like to discuss continues to support records and indeed allows the user to choose whatever type they like. The reasoning is as follows:
If the type contains managed types, then operating on it requires knowledge of the type. If the tree is to be generic, then it cannot have that knowledge. Ergo, the knowledge must be supplied by the user of the tree.
This leads you to events. Let the tree offer events that the user can supply handlers for. The types would look like this:
type
PTreeNodeUserData = type Pointer;
TTreeNodeCreateUserDataEvent = function: PTreeNodeUserData of object;
TTreeNodeDestroyUserDataEvent = procedure(Data: PTreeNodeUserData) of object;
TTreeNodeCopyUserDataEvent = procedure(Source, Dest: PTreeNodeUserData) of object;
Then you can arrange for your tree to publish events with these types that the user can subscribe to.
The point being that this allows the user of the tree to supply the missing knowledge about the user data type.
One of the main benefits of using records is the simplicity with which they can be copied (without using Move). So your best solution is to simply replace Move with a normal assignment operator :=. This will correctly consider the reference counts for all managed types involved.
Is there a particular reason you're not using the normal assignment operator?
PS: You need to ensure that the memory for all managed types (including long strings) is correctly initialised and finalised. I suggest you do some additional reading on the Initialize and Finalize routines.
The tree is general, it can hold a given lump of data. I hoped I could extend the functionality without making a new tree class per record.
In that case you need your "copy behaviour" to be variable depending on what it's working with. As couple of options:
If your tree is wrapped in a class you can easily modify it to use a callback event to perform the copy operation. (This option might be easiest even if you first have to work on encapsulating the tree in a class.)
Modify your nodes and/or data to be objects with polymorphic copy functionality. Then each subtype will know how to copy itself correctly, and you can write something along the lines of Root.TreeData := XData.CreateCopy;
If you are working at such a low level, and don't want compiler to help you, then you need to use PChar-strings instead of regular strings.
I've been using Delphi for quite some time now, but rather than coming from a CS background I have learnt "on the job" - mostly from my Boss, and augmented by bits and pieces picked up from the web, users guides, examples, etc.
Now my boss is old school, started programming using Pascal, and hasn't necessarily kept up-to-date with the latest changes to Delphi.
Just recently I've been wondering whether one of our core techniques is "wrong".
Most of our applications interface with MySQL. In general we will create a record with a structure to store data read from the DB, and these records will be stored in a TList. Generally we will have a unit that defines the various records that we have in an application, and the functions and procedures that seed and read the records. We don't use record procedures such as outlined here
After reviewing some examples I've started wondering whether we'd be better off using classes rather than records, but I'm having difficulty finding strong guidance either way.
The sort of thing that we are dealing with would be User information: Names, DOB, Events, Event Types. Or Timesheet information: Hours, Jobs, etc...
The big difference is that records are value types and classes are reference types. In a nutshell what this means is that:
For a value type, when you use assignment, a := b, a copy is made. There are two distinct instances, a and b.
For a reference type, when you use assignment, a := b, both variables refer to the same instance. There is only one instance.
The main consequence of this is what happens when you write a.Field := 42. For a record, the value type, the assignment a.Field changes the value of the member in a, but not in b. That's because a and b are different instances. But for a class, since a and b both refer to the same instance, then after executing a.Field := 42 you are safe to assert that b.Field = 42.
There's no hard and fast rule that says that you should always use value types, or always use reference types. Both have their place. In some situations, it will be preferable to use one, and in other situations it will be preferable to use the other. Essentially the decision always comes down to a decision on what you want the assignment operator to mean.
You have an existing code base, and presumably programmers familiar with it, that has made particular choices. Unless you have a compelling reason to switch to using reference types, making the change will almost certainly lead to defects. And defects both in the existing code (switch to reference type changes meaning of assignment operator), and in code you write in the future (you and your colleagues have developed intuition as to meaning of assignment operator in specific contexts, and that intuition will break if you switch).
What's more, you state that your types do not use methods. A type that consists only of data, and has no methods associated with it is very likely best represented by a value type. I cannot say that for sure, but my instincts tell me that the original developers made the right choice.
Seems like it's inconsistent in the lists module. For example, split has the number as the first argument and the list as the second, but sublists has the list as the first argument and the len as the second argument.
OK, a little history as I remember it and some principles behind my style.
As Christian has said the libraries evolved and tended to get the argument order and feel from the impulses we were getting just then. So for example the reason why element/setelement have the argument order they do is because it matches the arg/3 predicate in Prolog; logical then but not now. Often we would have the thing being worked on first, but unfortunately not always. This is often a good choice as it allows "optional" arguments to be conveniently added to the end; for example string:substr/2/3. Functions with the thing as the last argument were often influenced by functional languages with currying, for example Haskell, where it is very easy to use currying and partial evaluation to build specific functions which can then be applied to the thing. This is very noticeable in the higher order functions in lists.
The only influence we didn't have was from the OO world. :-)
Usually we at least managed to be consistent within a module, but not always. See lists again. We did try to have some consistency, so the argument order in the higher order functions in dict/sets match those of the corresponding functions in lists.
The problem was also aggravated by the fact that we, especially me, had a rather cavalier attitude to libraries. I just did not see them as a selling point for the language, so I wasn't that worried about it. "If you want a library which does something then you just write it" was my motto. This meant that my libraries were structured, just not always with the same structure. :-) That was how many of the initial libraries came about.
This, of course, creates unnecessary confusion and breaks the law of least astonishment, but we have not been able to do anything about it. Any suggestions of revising the modules have always been met with a resounding "no".
My own personal style is a usually structured, though I don't know if it conforms to any written guidelines or standards.
I generally have the thing or things I am working on as the first arguments, or at least very close to the beginning; the order depends on what feels best. If there is a global state which is chained through the whole module, which there usually is, it is placed as the last argument and given a very descriptive name like St0, St1, ... (I belong to the church of short variable names). Arguments which are chained through functions (both input and output) I try to keep the same argument order as return order. This makes it much easier to see the structure of the code. Apart from that I try to group together arguments which belong together. Also, where possible, I try to preserve the same argument order throughout a whole module.
None of this is very revolutionary, but I find if you keep a consistent style then it is one less thing to worry about and it makes your code feel better and generally be more readable. Also I will actually rewrite code if the argument order feels wrong.
A small example which may help:
fubar({f,A0,B0}, Arg2, Ch0, Arg4, St0) ->
{A1,Ch1,St1} = foo(A0, Arg2, Ch0, St0),
{B1,Ch2,St2} = bar(B0, Arg4, Ch1, St1),
Res = baz(A1, B1),
{Res,Ch2,St2}.
Here Ch is a local chained through variable while St is a more global state. Check out the code on github for LFE, especially the compiler, if you want a longer example.
This became much longer than it should have been, sorry.
P.S. I used the word thing instead of object to avoid confusion about what I was talking.
No, there is no consistently-used idiom in the sense that you mean.
However, there are some useful relevant hints that apply especially when you're going to be making deeply recursive calls. For instance, keeping whichever arguments will remain unchanged during tail calls in the same order/position in the argument list allows the virtual machine to make some very nice optimizations.
In the process of transforming a given efficient pointer-based hash map implementation into a generic hash map implementation, I stumbled across the following problem:
I have a class representing a hash node (the hash map implementation uses a binary tree)
THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE> = class
public
Key : KEY_TYPE;
Value : VALUE_TYPE;
Left : THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>;
Right : THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>;
end;
In addition to that there is a function that should return a pointer to a hash node. I wanted to write
PHashNode = ^THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>
but that doesn't compile (';' expected but '<' found).
How can I have a pointer to a generic type?
And adressed to Barry Kelly: if you read this: yes, this is based on your hash map implementation. You haven't written such a generic version of your implementation yourself, have you? That would save me some time :)
Sorry, Smasher. Pointers to open generic types are not supported because generic pointer types are not supported, although it is possible (compiler bug) to create them in certain circumstances (particularly pointers to nested types inside a generic type); this "feature" can't be removed in an update in case we break someone's code. The limitation on generic pointer types ought to be removed in the future, but I can't make promises when.
If the type in question is the one in JclStrHashMap I wrote (or the ancient HashList unit), well, the easiest way to reproduce it would be to change the node type to be a class and pass around any double-pointers as Pointer with appropriate casting. However, if I were writing that unit again today, I would not implement buckets as binary trees. I got the opportunity to write the dictionary in the Generics.Collections unit, though with all the other Delphi compiler work time was too tight before shipping for solid QA, and generic feature support itself was in flux until fairly late.
I would prefer to implement the hash map buckets as one of double-hashing, per-bucket dynamic arrays or linked lists of cells from a contiguous array, whichever came out best from tests using representative data. The logic is that cache miss cost of following links in tree/list ought to dominate any difference in bucket search between tree and list with a good hash function. The current dictionary is implemented as straight linear probing primarily because it was relatively easy to implement and worked with the available set of primitive generic operations.
That said, the binary tree buckets should have been an effective hedge against poor hash functions; if they were balanced binary trees (=> even more modification cost), they would be O(1) on average and O(log n) worst case performance.
To actually answer your question, you can't make a pointer to a generic type, because "generic types" don't exist. You have to make a pointer to a specific type, with the type parameters filled in.
Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't like finding angle brackets after a ^. But it will accept the following:
TGeneric<T> = record
value: T;
end;
TSpecific = TGeneric<string>;
PGeneric = ^TSpecific;
But "PGeneric = ^TGeneric<string>;" gives a compiler error. Sounds like a glitch to me. I'd report that over at QC if I was you.
Why are you trying to make a pointer to an object, anyway? Delphi objects are a reference type, so they're pointers already. You can just cast your object reference to Pointer and you're good.
If Delphi supported generic pointer types at all, it would have to look like this:
type
PHashNode<K, V> = ^THashNode<K, V>;
That is, mention the generic parameters on the left side where you declare the name of the type, and then use those parameters in constructing the type on the right.
However, Delphi does not support that. See QC 66584.
On the other hand, I'd also question the necessity of having a pointer to a class type at all. Generic or not. they are needed only very rarely.
There's a generic hash map called TDictionary in the Generics.Collections unit. Unfortunately, it's badly broken at the moment, but it's apparently going to be fixed in update #3, which is due out within a matter of days, according to Nick Hodges.