and component of type double might possibly be 'lifted' to ndouble transparently.
For an actor A:double -> double the actor lift(A):ndouble->ndouble such that
if(input instanceof double) {
do A
} else {
send(null)
}
or some such.Like I've said, there are several ways to get the same behavior... I think you are largely
running into this problem because you are using process networks(correct?), in which case
you probably have to use a union data type, or send side information about the "nullness"
(These are essentially the same, the question is whether the type system is taking care of the
side information, or whether you are adding it explicitly).
Another way to approach the problem (not necessarily better... it depends on the application)
is to use a model of computation that supports communication of nulls.
In this case, the hasToken(), or possibly the isKnown() method of a port
returns true or false depending on whether the input is null or not. You can use these methods
in a process network, but they always return true, and hence give no information...
Steve
At 09:49 PM 10/13/2003 -0700, Bertram Ludaescher wrote:
Steve, Chad:
Here is a related question (I had discussed this earlier today with Shawn) on "how to do things properly" in PTII:
The type extension mentioned by Chad, let's call it "ndouble" for "nullable double" can (and probably should) be modeled as a *supertype* to "double" since its instances are precisely "double U null" (all double numbers plus null). The problem with this, however, is that any code that works for double (say an actor computing the running average of its stream of double values) now won't work for "ndouble" since the latter is a supertype of the former. If it were the other way round, i.e., ndouble being a subtype of double, we could assume that all code still works for the subtype. Of course this doesn't work as-is, since the double actors don't really know what to do with a null value.
Bottom line (not surprising): for existing actors to work on a new type such as ndouble, something needs to be changed to take into account the new behavior (for nulls in this case). The question is how to best engineer this in general, and in PTII in particular.
Any suggestions most welcome.
It also seems that the following article by Castagna is relevant to this discussion: Covariance And Contravariance:conflict Without A Cause (1994) Giuseppe Castagna http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/24009.html
Bertram
>>>>> "SAN" == Stephen Andrew Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SAN>
SAN> Modifying the type hierarchy in this way is difficult: We haven't yet
SAN> implemented a good way to make it extensible in this way.
SAN> Part of the problem is that the type lattice is somewhat hardcoded into
SAN> operations on the token classes. Modifying the type hierarchy in
SAN> significant ways is not currently possible without modifying the existing
SAN> token classes at the same time. I have some ideas on improving the
SAN> situation, but I haven't had time to implement them yet.
SAN>
SAN> The one way that the type hierarchy *can* be simply extended is that it
SAN> allows the addition of new data types that are incomparable with
SAN> the existing types (other than UNKNOWN and GENERAL, of course). If you
SAN> define a new Token class, and a corresponding type class, then this type
SAN> will be correctly type checked.
SAN>
SAN> There are other ways to get the behavior you desire.. One is through an
SAN> (unimplemented) structured type called "Union" which operates similar
SAN> Unions in C... This should be relatively easy to implement, we just
SAN> haven't gotten around to it. Your type is then Union(double, event) or
SAN> something similar.
SAN> Another way is to use side information (a boolean, for instance) to
SAN> determin whether or not the "double" is valid.
SAN> Another way is to use a less constrained Model of Computation (like SR or
SAN> DE) which has a built-in notion of absent.
SAN> Any one of these would probably be significantly simpler than modifying the
SAN> existing double token....
SAN>
SAN> Steve
SAN>
SAN> At 11:08 AM 10/13/2003 -0700, Chad Berkley wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We have a question about the extensibility of the Ptolemy II type system.
>> In our project, we need to extend the type system by adding new
>> data types and modifying the type hierarchy. As an example, we need to
>> incorporate a new double type (as a superclass of double) that accepts
>> null, or missing, values.
>>
>> We would like to add new data types without altering the Ptolemy codebase.
>> It seems the way to do this is by overriding the TypeLattice class (to add
>> new edges for our new extended types). We had the impression (e.g., as
>> discussed in Chapter 12 of the manual) that this extensibility was
>> possible. However, it appears that the TypeLattice is hard coded, e.g.,
>> it is not a parameter to the BaseType class, and instead, a default
>> instance of TypeLattice is hard coded into BaseType.
>>
>> So, the questions are: Are our ideas using the Ptolemy type system code
>> in the way in which it was intended? Are there other ways to extend types
>> without altering the Ptolemy code? Do you have any suggestions as to our
>> approach?
>>
>> thanks,
>> chad
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------
>> Chad Berkley
>> National Center for
>> Ecological Analysis
>> and Synthesis (NCEAS)
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> -----------------------
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Posted to the ptolemy-hackers mailing list. Please send administrative
>> mail for this list to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SAN>
SAN>
SAN>
SAN> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN> Posted to the ptolemy-hackers mailing list. Please send administrative
SAN> mail for this list to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted to the ptolemy-hackers mailing list. Please send administrative mail for this list to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
