You also need the loop combinator for implementing early return (the return 
I think i have an example of how to map a small language to a loop combinator 
i will try to find that (or rewrite it) tomorrow. 


> De: "Charles Oliver Nutter" <>
> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <>
> Envoyé: Mardi 2 Janvier 2018 21:36:33
> Objet: Re: Writing a compiler to handles, but filter seems to executed in
> reverse

> An alternative workaround: I do the filters myself, manually, in the order 
> that
> I want them to executed. Also gross.

> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:35 PM Charles Oliver Nutter < [
> | ] > wrote:

>> Ahh I believe I see it now.
>> filterArguments starts with the first filter, and wraps the incoming target
>> handle with each in turn. However, because it's starting at the target, you 
>> get
>> the filters stacked up in reverse order:

>> filter(target, 0, a, b, c, d)

>> ends up as

>> d_filter(c_filter(b_filter(a_filter(target))))

>> And so naturally when invoked, they execute in reverse order.

>> This seems I am surprised we have not run into this as a problem, but I 
>> believe
>> most of my uses of filter in JRuby have been pure functions where order was 
>> not
>> important (except for error conditions).

>> Now in looking for a fix, I've run into the nasty workaround required to get
>> filters to execute in the correct order: you have to reverse the filters, and
>> then reverse the results again. This is far from desirable, since it requires
>> at least one permute to put the results back in proper order.

>> Is there a good justification for doing it this way, rather than having
>> filterArguments start with the *last* filter nearest the target?

>> - Charlie

>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:17 PM Charles Oliver Nutter < [
>> | ] > wrote:

>>> Hello all, long time no write!
>>> I'm finally playing with writing a "compiler" for JRuby that uses only 
>>> method
>>> handles to represent code structure. For most simple expressions, this
>>> obviously works well. However I'm having trouble with blocks of code that
>>> contain multiple expressions.

>>> Starting with the standard call signature through the handle tree, we have a
>>> basic (Object[])Object type. The Object[] contains local variable state for 
>>> the
>>> script, and will be as wide as there are local variables. AST nodes are
>>> basically compiled into little functions that take in the variable state and
>>> produce a value. In this way, every expression in the tree can be compiled,
>>> including local variable sets and gets, loops, and so on.

>>> Now the tricky bit...

>>> The root node for a given script contains one or more expressions that 
>>> should be
>>> executed in sequence, with the final result being returned. The way I'm
>>> handling this in method handles is as follows (invokebinder code but 
>>> hopefully
>>> easy to read):
>>> MethodHandle[] handles =
>>> Arrays
>>> . stream (rootNode.children())
>>> .map(node -> compile(node))
>>> .toArray(n -> new MethodHandle[n]);
>>> return Binder. from (Object. class , Object[]. class )
>>> .permute( new int [handles. length ])
>>> .filter( 0 , handles)
>>> .drop( 0 , handles. length - 1 )
>>> .identity();
>>> In pseudo-code, this basically duplicates the Object[] as many times as 
>>> there
>>> are lines of code to execute, and then uses filterArguments to evaluate 
>>> each in
>>> turn. Then everything but the last result is culled and the final result is
>>> returned.

>>> Unfortunately, this doesn't work right: filterArguments appears to execute 
>>> in
>>> reverse order. When I try to run a simple script like "a = 1; a" the "a" 
>>> value
>>> comes back null, because it is executed first.

>>> Is this expected? Do filters, when executed, actually process from the last
>>> argument back, rather than the first argument forward?

>>> Note: I know this would be possible to do with guaranteed ordering using 
>>> the new
>>> loop combinators in 9. I'm working up to that for examples for a talk.

>>> - Charlie

> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev mailing list

Reply via email to