On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:59:50AM +0100, Torben Hoffmann wrote: > One of my pet peeves came to bite me this morning... with any data > structure make sure that it works with fold* et al. > > For ec_dictionary this means swapping the arguments for remove/2 > -spec remove(key(),dictionary()) -> dictionary().
That makes very good sense to me. I would like to be consisant on the argument ordering though. > > Then you can do lists:foldl(fun ec_dictionary:remove/2, InitialDict, List) > which is so nice compared to throwing in an anonymous function that does > nothing but swap the arguments... > > And for the rest of the functions the current style in dict, gb_trees is > to have > -spec insert(key(),value(),data_structure()) -> data_structure(). > > whereas ec_dictionary wants the data_structure first: > -spec add(dictionary(),key(),value()) -> dictionary(). > > I think the ec_dictionary style is on the wrong route - we do not want to > make it that different from the existing implementation. Lets change it. Matching the existing ordering that people expect is a very good thing. > Our goal should be to harmonise and remove the small differences there is > between the APIs today - not to create a totally new API with new order of > arguments. A fully agree on all counts. That was a good catch on your part. Which branch are your patches on so I can pick them? > > Cheers, > Torben > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:36, Eric Merritt <[1][email protected]> > wrote: > > Ok, that works fine. When we get something lets sync back up so we > know we are going in the same direction. > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Torben Hoffmann > <[2][email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <[3][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 > >> <[4][email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 20:19, Eric Merritt > <[5][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 > <[6][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 > >> >> >> <[7][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 > >> >> >> > <[8][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 > >> >> >> >> <[9][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 > >> >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> >> > [10]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > [11]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > [12]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > [13]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > [14]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > > > > -- > [15]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > > References > > Visible links > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. mailto:[email protected] > 4. mailto:[email protected] > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. mailto:[email protected] > 7. mailto:[email protected] > 8. mailto:[email protected] > 9. mailto:[email protected] > 10. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > 11. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > 12. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > 13. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > 14. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > 15. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann -- Eric Merritt Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan http://twitter.com/ericbmerritt http://erlware.org -- 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.
