On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 17:24:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Very nice. Using memoize did occur to me, but I needed an array
interface to it. Didn't think of using memoize with map, for
some reason. Thanks for the idea!
However, looking at the implementation of memoize, it seems
that it's caching the result globally, with very little control
over the cache except the size. I wonder if there's a way to
control it better, i.e., free the cache once there are no more
references to it, and have the cache size depend on the data
size. Basically, in my use case, once I map an array it's not
predictable in advance how many elements will be accessed
(i.e., it's hard to decide on an optimal cache size for
memoize), but this access will happen pretty soon afterwards,
and then the array will be discarded (i.e., no point holding on
old entries in the cache). I would prefer that the cache will
be cleared once the mapped array has been GC'd, but memoize()
seems to hold on to the cached results indefinitely.
No worries! And ugh, can't think off the top of my head how to
improve it other than to make it a type and give it scope so that
it can die at some point. But that would make it uglier to use as
Btw, I just saw someone posted a link to an old forum post of
Mind if I add that (or a version of it) to a library I'm writing?
(it's an optional type on dub)