Yes, I think this would allow all the optimizations that Eric talked about.
Sam On Jun 13, 2014 4:26 AM, "Robby Findler" <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Would it be useful to get blame information back from a value, just > like you can currently get the contract back? > > Robby > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > > > I was thinking of associating the contract with the type from which it > comes and no that's not hash-consing. And if it's slower, too bad. -- > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen > >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Eric, are you talking about changing the proxy values that wrap > HO/mutable > >>>>> contracted values? > >>>> Yes. I want the proxy values to include information about who agreed > >>>> to the contract in addition to the contract agreed to. > >>>> > >>>> I actually realize that I might need more than just the contract > >>>> agreed to because of how TR changes the generated contract to remove > >>>> checks for what it guarantees, so that info is not in the contract. > >>>> But I believe that can be added back as a structure property on the > >>>> contract. > >>> > >>> > >>> Would some form of hash-consing contracts work here? -- Matthias > >>> > >> > >> I don't think so. But not sure exactly what you are proposing. > >> > >> The issue is that there are 4 contracts here and 2 of them currently > >> do not exist at runtime. The 4 are TRs checks/promises on an > >> export/import. (Using import for a value flowing into an exported > >> function). The promise contracts do not currently exist as removing > >> them was my previous optimization (They never fail). What I want to do > >> is change the check on import from (array/c symbol?) to (if/c > >> (protected>? (array/c symbol?)) any/c (array/c symbol?)). Where > >> (protected>? x/c) checks if TR already promised something stronger > >> than x/c. > >> > >> I believe that you are proposing that we can use the identity of the > >> contract returned by value-contract to determine what the promised > >> contract would have been. This does not work as (Array Symbol) and > >> (Array Float) both get translated to (array/c any/c) for export, and > >> we would want to lookup different promised contracts for them. We > >> could use weak hash map as an extra field but that seems like it would > >> be slow. > > > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev