Leave the dict implementation to me - I need something to work out the properties with.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:32, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > I will get this backed out and the behaviours implemented against > ec_dictionary for gb_tress and dict while you work on the PropEr > stuff. Then in a day or two we can try running them against each > other. How does that sound? > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Torben Hoffmann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 20:19, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > The behaviour should be just the behaviour_info/1 function for the > time > >> > being. > >> > > >> > We use the specs in ec_dictionary as our guiding light for the > >> > implementation of the functions - simplified a bit to match the simple > >> > starting implementation. > >> > > >> > I suggest that we use a record defined in ec_dictionary.hrl for the > >> > common > >> > data structure between the different implementations. > >> > > >> > -record(dict_data, { mod, data }). > >> > > >> > Where mod is the module implementing the ec_dictionary behaviour and > >> > data is > >> > the current value. > >> > With the record it will be easier to extend the functions later on. > >> > >> I am assuming that this will eventually be used by the abstraction > >> layer. Is there any reason for us to expose this to the > >> implementations? I can't think of a good reason for the > >> implementations to have knowledge of the abstractions structures (I > >> hope that makes sense). > > > > You are right - I just want to build the layers of abstraction gradually. > > When we are ready it will go away from the implementing modules. > > > >> > >> > I am okay with cloning your repo, but wouldn't it be just as easy (or > >> > easier) to make the current repo writable by me and work on separate > >> > branches? > >> > >> I would rather work between us until we got something publishable, > >> pulling from peer repos is the same as pulling from a central repo in > >> git ;). However, I am more then happy to open up the canonical if you > >> would like. > > > > Point taken - I will clone and then we take it from there. > > > > Cheers, > > Torben > > > >> > >> > > >> > I will start looking into how PropEr works - I am sure there are some > >> > subtle > >> > differences from QuickCheck that needs a loving hand before I can get > it > >> > rolling... > >> > >> Sweet, When I get the chance I will back out the current abstraction > >> implementation until we are ready for that. > >> > >> > Cheers, > >> > Torben > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 16:30, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I am moving this back to the dev list. I suspect it might be > >> >> interesting and useful for those folks. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Torben Hoffmann > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Didn't get much done yesterday - my knee was hurting after my > >> >> > operation > >> >> > on > >> >> > it last Thursday. > >> >> > >> >> No worries, we aren't on a time line here and this is something I > >> >> would like to get right. > >> >> > >> >> > But I did get around to looking at some of your code, so I have a > few > >> >> > questions/observations. > >> >> > >> >> Sweet, this is what I really wanted. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > ec_implements puzzles me a bit. Unless I am misreading things it > has > >> >> > a > >> >> > big > >> >> > overlap with how behaviours work in Erlang and I think it would be > >> >> > better to > >> >> > create a proper behaviour and avoid creating functions like > >> >> > has_all_callbacks/2. > >> >> > >> >> I agree, thats why I created ec_dictionary. I expect things to be > >> >> based around behaviours. The main reason the check functions are > there > >> >> is just to give the callee the ability to verify that a module > >> >> implements a behaviour at runtime. This is just an optional > >> >> verification step. I suspect this is over-engineering on my part, any > >> >> time you implement something for other to use that you don't use > >> >> yourself its a bad smell. I do wish that Erlang had a simple call to > >> >> see if a module implemented a behaviour. > >> >> > >> >> > Since you are aiming at making ec_dictionary the behaviour then you > >> >> > get > >> >> > the > >> >> > has_all_callbacks/2 functionality for free when you put > >> >> > -behaviour(ec_dictonary) into the implementing module. > >> >> > >> >> This is true an compile time of the implementor, but on the 'user' > >> >> side there is no guarantee that the thing being passed to you > >> >> implements that behaviour. We can probably drop that functionality > >> >> though. The errors if that is the case should be pretty obvious. > >> >> > >> >> > ec_assoc_list doesn't really leverage the behaviour code, which is > >> >> > fine > >> >> > for > >> >> > a first stab at it, but I think a more iterative approach to the > >> >> > creation of > >> >> > this library will keep us saner compared to go for the big thing in > >> >> > the > >> >> > first iteration. > >> >> > >> >> It existed mostly as a quick example I could through together. N > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I would suggest that we start with a simplified ec_dictionary > >> >> > behaviour > >> >> > that > >> >> > merely defines the behaviour_info/1 function. > >> >> > Then we implement two different dictionary implementations, say > lists > >> >> > and > >> >> > orddict, plus a temporary module to instantiate them. This without > >> >> > the > >> >> > abstract type info for starters. > >> >> > >> >> That seems reasonable to me. If nothing else it validates the > >> >> interface for dictionary we come up with. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Then we create a PropEr specification of how a dictionary should > >> >> > behave > >> >> > and > >> >> > test the hell out of our pathetic code! > >> >> > >> >> That sounds like a damn good idea to me. Once we get things along and > >> >> I understand PropEr I may add support for it in sinan, depends on how > >> >> useful it would be. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > When that is in place we start working on putting real code into > the > >> >> > behaviour and continuously re-run our specification after each > little > >> >> > change. > >> >> > > >> >> > Then we can re-introduce the abstract typing and then we should be > >> >> > done. > >> >> > >> >> Except then we get to do the same thing for sets and a handful of > >> >> other types. ;) > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > It might be a bit of a detour compared to the code base you have > put > >> >> > in > >> >> > place, but I think that it will be easier for us to get a good > PropEr > >> >> > specification that works by working on simple implementations > before > >> >> > we > >> >> > start throwing in the behaviour code. It might be that we should > >> >> > focus > >> >> > on > >> >> > one dictionary implementation first and get a specification that > >> >> > works > >> >> > before we start adding another implementation. > >> >> > > >> >> > I am a total chicken when it comes to these things, which is why I > >> >> > like > >> >> > to > >> >> > get a functional base in place very early and then improve it along > >> >> > the > >> >> > way. > >> >> > Especially with so many things on the table as we have here. > >> >> > > >> >> > Does this sound reasonable to you? > >> >> > >> >> It does. To get concrete. Lets start by defining the behaviour and > the > >> >> PropEr spec then wrap gb_trees and dicts as or first set up > >> >> implementations. Assuming we did everything right both of our > >> >> implementations should pass the PropEr spec. I like this approach for > >> >> types in any case. > >> >> > >> >> What do you think? > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > If so I suggest we create a temporary github repo for the code and > >> >> > work > >> >> > it > >> >> > from there. > >> >> > >> >> I don't see a whole lot of need to create a new repo. Just clone > >> >> commons and we can easily work between us there. When we have it > >> >> worked out we can move it up to canonical pretty trivially. > >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, > >> >> > Torben > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 14:38, Eric Merritt < > [email protected]> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sweet man. Thats great news. I am *very* interested in your > opinion > >> >> >> of the code I sent out last night and I am very interested in > >> >> >> learning > >> >> >> PropEr as well. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Torben Hoffmann > >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> > Hi Eric, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I was trying to set up PropEr last night on my home machine, but > >> >> >> > since > >> >> >> > PropEr is based on rebar I had to go through a massive update of > >> >> >> > my > >> >> >> > tool > >> >> >> > chain. And I was behind on erlware so I ended up spending the > >> >> >> > entire > >> >> >> > night > >> >> >> > upgrading. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I will get on with the code tonight! > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Cheers, > >> >> >> > Torben > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlware-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
