"I was just pointing that fact out." Not "a fact" but my theory about the mechanism they use.
Jim Bromer On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Microsoft (is it .net?) also allows you to request the type of a variable > by using the variable name in a function parameter. So I assume that their > object reference to their type "Int32" holds the space for a 32 bit integer > value and the variable type along with it. It may hold more than, I was > just pointing that fact out. > > Jim Bromer > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:48 PM, John Rose via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not sure if this is what you are asking but in C# you store the type and >> the method delegate then combine them both before invoking with >> Delegate.CreateDelegate: >> >> >> >> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.delegate.createdelegate(v=vs.110).aspx >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Piaget Modeler via AGI [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Friday, January 2, 2015 5:03 PM >> *To:* AGI >> >> *Subject:* RE: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> >> >> >> Further constraints... >> >> >> >> *1. There is a global list of namespaces.* >> >> >> >> (namespaces) .: {System Premise Bar Baz} >> >> >> >> *2. Qualified functions will be unknown if their namespace is not defined >> in the * >> >> *global list of namespaces.* >> >> >> >> (An.Unknown.Namespace.Hello) .: [Exception :Text 'function is not known'] >> >> >> >> *3. Each namespace defines zero or more functions and a zero or more >> dependent namespaces.* >> >> >> >> (namespace Foo >> >> >> >> (requires Bar) >> >> (requires Baz) >> >> >> >> (function goodbye {} BYE) >> >> (function niceToKnowYou {} NTKY) >> >> >> >> ) .: Foo >> >> >> >> (using Foo) .: Foo ; sets the current namespace, akin to USE <DB> in >> SQL. >> >> >> >> (functions Foo) .: {goodbye niceToKnowYou} >> >> >> >> (dependencies Foo) .: {Bar Baz} >> >> >> >> >> >> (functions Bar) .: {wellWell ohISee} >> >> >> >> (dependencies Bar) .: { } >> >> >> >> >> >> (functions Baz) .: {thisOne thatOne} >> >> >> >> (dependencies Baz) .: { } >> >> >> >> >> >> *4. If an unqualified function is not defined in the current namespace >> nor * >> >> *one of the required namespaces then it is unknown.* >> >> >> >> (Hello there) >> >> >> >> ~PM >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 13:37:18 -0800 >> >> That's a start. >> >> >> >> What kind and how could even that be improved? >> >> >> >> ~PM >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 15:16:00 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> A look up table? >> >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> In the Premise language function rules are very simple. A function name >> follows a left parenthesis. >> >> However the name can be fully qualified *<namespace>.<function>* or >> unqualified *<function>* . >> >> >> >> When the name is unqualified we have to resolve the name, qualifiy it in >> order to select the appropriate >> >> function to execute. Each namespace has a set of imported namespaces >> which may contain the correct >> >> function definition. We only need the first namespace that has the >> correct function definition, we don't >> >> care if it is multiply defined. >> >> >> >> Suppose we're in the namespace User and want to access the *sum* function >> defined in the Math namespace. >> >> We have a situation like this: >> >> >> >> (using User) >> >> .: User >> >> >> >> (dependencies User) ; return the namespaces this namespace >> requires >> >> .: {Premise System} >> >> >> >> (namespace Math >> >> (function sum ?args >> >> (apply + ?args))) >> >> .: Math >> >> >> >> (dependencies User) >> >> .: {Premise System} >> >> >> >> (Math.sum 1 2 3) ; fully qualified function call >> >> .: 6 >> >> >> >> (sum 1 2 3) ; unqualified function call Math >> namespace is not known to User >> >> .: [Exception :Text 'The function sum is unknown'] >> >> >> >> (require Math) ; make Math known to user >> >> .: Math >> >> >> >> (dependencies User) >> >> .: {Premise System Math} >> >> >> >> (sum 1 2 3) ; resolves *sum * to *Math.sum* >> >> .: 6 >> >> >> >> The resolution takes time. Albeit a small fraction of time. But it is >> cumulative. >> >> >> >> This is the specific problem. >> >> >> >> ~PM >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 20:39:02 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Are you referring to a problem which involves taking runtime data and >> searches for an appropriate function given the dynamic value? The search >> for the type of object that is defined in runtime is not part of the >> problem is it? Because a simple call where the type of the variable is >> given or directly implied (by uniqueness for example) should not take too >> much time even during runtime. I can think of two search problems that >> might occur in something like that. If the establishment of the appropriate >> set function requires some trial and error data-fitting (or function >> fitting) that could turn out to be inefficient. Or if the search involves a >> proverbial tree search then that might take some time as well. I don't see >> a straightforward run-time function call (to something that is like a >> template) as being that time consuming. >> >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> It basically boils down to a basic speed versus extensibility tradeoff. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 08:55:44 -0800 >> >> Given 200-250 base functions in 10 packages (namespaces), if the >> functions are >> >> defined as language intrinsics (like *if * or *for*) then there is no >> need for pakckage >> >> lookup, no need to resolve the name with the namespace, so no overheard >> is >> >> incurred. If the functions are defined as qualified identifiers (prefixed >> by package >> >> name) then we need to look up any unqualified identifiers first, thereby >> resolving >> >> the identifier with the package, before proceeding with the evaluation. >> >> >> >> For Example, the *set *function in the *System.KB* package (namespace) >> sets a slot >> >> in a prototype instance to a value. >> >> >> >> The programmer can fully qualify the function call >> >> >> >> (S*ystem.KB.set* ?identifier ?slot ?value) >> >> >> >> Or the programmer can reference the package and use an unqualified call >> >> >> >> (require *System.KB*) >> >> (*set* ?identifier ?slot ?value) >> >> >> >> When *set* is encountered we need to search the required namespaces to >> determine >> >> which set function is implied, hence we find *System.KB.set* and >> replace *set *with >> >> the fully qualified name. We do this during form evaluation in the >> REPL,whether >> >> the REPL is just-in-time compiled or interpreted. >> >> >> >> If we defined *set* as an intrinsic then there would be no package >> issue, but also >> >> no modularity. We just encounter *set *and call the *set *intrinsic. So >> there is no overhead >> >> incurred by attempting to resolve the function name with a namespace. >> >> >> >> So, my question is, are there any known optimizations to this problem of >> resolving >> >> function names with packages? >> >> >> >> ~PM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [agi] Namespace search optimization >> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:03:05 +0000 >> >> Dictionary lookups (on the first part of the name if the full list is big >> compared to RAM)? >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Piaget Modeler via AGI [[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 01 January 2015 05:53 >> *To:* AGI >> *Subject:* [agi] Namespace search optimization >> >> Are there any optimizations that can be done to look up identifiers in >> namespaces >> >> for either just in time compilers or interpreters ? >> >> >> >> I'm writing a REPL and namespace resolution of function identifiers takes >> too much >> >> time away from overall evaluation. >> >> >> >> Any ideas or thoughts? >> >> >> >> ~PM >> >> >> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5404257-22a42d7f>| Modify >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> ------------------------------ >> >> UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN >> >> This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer >> published on our website at >> http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 >> 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it >> is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the >> author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not >> use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not >> related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's >> individual capacity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
