Ken,

thanks again for the info. I guess some stuff got out of order here:

First, just a point of information: do I understand correctly that the original example below uses an assoc instead of your store just to simplify the problem and highlight the key issue?

Yes and no. Yes, the list stuff was my attempt of singling out what was going on. But! -- I wrote the stuff *before* I understood the issue; in other words, this is how I tried (!) to do it before I made the cells store.

I am guessing yes, so I will charge ahead with my thoughts: basically you need to make the lookup itself establish a dependency. I had assumed that this what you had done when you said you had created a cells-aware store.

And you were assuming right -- That is, I hope what I did is what you mean. Indeed bwen-(c-)gethash (which I will rename to bwhen-in-c-store or sth like that) expands into some code that creates a dependency on a listener object in the store, which then in turn is kicked when the hash table is updated.

I was guessing that behind the scenes there was a second hashtable with the same key but a value that was a list of the cells that had looked it up. (Or you could try stuffing the thing stored with a list of asking cells in the one hash-value.)

Indeed there are two hash tables, one with the actual stored stuff and one with auxiliary objects that are uses to toggle the update. This way we have two hash table lookups for every access, so maybe it would make sense to keep the two in a cons in one table. But hold on, I hear "premature optimization".

That would have gotten you into c-link, c-unlink, and other good stuff.

Not sure whether we are on the same page. I have register-listener, kick-listener, and unregister-listener as internal methods on the store. I assume we're talking similar ideas here. I like your naming convention, tho.

And then you are done. Everything (including sensible optimization) just flows from that.

True.

Sorry if I am all wet or if not for not examining your code earlier. I'd look now but jet lag beckons. I'll try later or just let me know if this is making sense.

Just for clarification: I assume you have not yet looked at the code in md-utilities, but were just going from what I had described here, right?

I'lll put in a few changes based on what I ran into in test-gtk and on what you wrote here and commit later today.

ps. I did not stare too hard either at your deferred optimizarion or something idea because I saw this other more standard approach to the problem, but again if it turns out I missed something I'll stare at that too when I recover a little. k

Deferred optimization? Now you lost me. Not quite sure what you are referring too.

pps. Interesting idea: if things never go away you can lose the dependency of the seeker on the store once the sought key appears. Not sure how to express that, unless we tackle the not-to-be issue by doing something I have toyed with before (and might even still be out there): a rule that says when an instance dies. In the case where that is a hardcoded nil or a rule that produced nil and then got optimized away, the cells-store could drop the dependency from its side after propagating to the asker. k

That is interesting indeed. I thought about that before, but I am not sure my scheme will provide for that, it might need some major change to what I do so far. OTOH, the good news is that my idea of listener or link cells reduces the overhead through this -- even if we have a dependency on the link, this does not matter as long as we don't touch the link.

Just random thought,

Peter

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Peter Hildebrandt peter.hildebrandt@gmail.com wrote:

...

While working on the hash-table lookup for md-names (as an alternative to fm-other) I came across an interesting phenomenon: Some rules die, others don't. Following the XP idea for RFEs, I'll try to present a test case:

(defpackage :c-test (:use :cl :cells :utils-kt)) (in-package :c-test)

(defparameter *hash* (make-hash-table)) (defun val (name) (bwhen (obj (gethash name *hash*)) (value obj)))

(defparameter *m1* (make-instance 'model :value (c? (bif (v (val :foo)) (1+ v) 'nothing)))) (assert (eql (value *m1*) 'nothing))

(setf (gethash :foo *hash*) (make-instance 'model :value (c-in nil)))

(defparameter *m2* (make-instance 'model :value (c? (bif (v (val :foo)) (1+ v) 'nothing))))

(assert (eql (value *m1*) 'nothing)) (assert (eql (value *m2*) 'nothing))

(setf (value (gethash :foo *hash*)) 42) (assert (eql (value *m1*) 43)) ;;; #### FAILS #### (assert (eql (value *m2*) 43)) ;;; ok

(setf (value (gethash :foo *hash*)) 17) (assert (eql (value *m1*) 18)) ;;; #### FAILS #### (assert (eql (value *m2*) 18)) ;;; ok

;;; or with a list

(defparameter *list* nil) (defun valb (name) (bwhen (obj (assocd name *list*)) (value obj))) (defparameter *m1b* (make-instance 'model :value (c? (bif (v (valb :foo)) (1+ v) 'nothing))))

(assert (eql (value *m1b*) 'nothing))

(push (cons :foo (make-instance 'model :value (c-in nil))) *list*)

(defparameter *m2b* (make-instance 'model :value (c? (bif (v (valb :foo)) (1+ v) 'nothing))))

(assert (eql (value *m1b*) 'nothing)) (assert (eql (value *m2b*) 'nothing))

(setf (value (assocd :foo *list*)) 17) (assert (eql (value *m1b*) 18)) ;;; #### FAILS #### (assert (eql (value *m2b*) 18)) ;;; ok

(setf (value (assocd :foo *list*)) 42) (assert (eql (value *m1b*) 43)) ;;; #### FAILS #### (assert (eql (value *m2b*) 43)) ;;; ok

---

An interesting indicator might be that the first call to (value *m1*) returns two values, 'nothing and nil -- does that mean that cells somehow realizes there that this cell can be optimized out?

And -- more importantly -- how can I tell cells not to optimize away the ruled cell in *m1*/*m1b*?

Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ cells-devel site list cells-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cells-devel

That was fuzzy. Clarifications below...

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Ken Tilton kennytilton@optonline.net wrote:

Peter Hildebrandt wrote:

...

Ken,

thanks again for the info. I guess some stuff got out of order here:

First, just a point of information: do I understand correctly that the

...

original example below uses an assoc instead of your store just to simplify the problem and highlight the key issue?

Yes and no. Yes, the list stuff was my attempt of singling out what was going on. But! -- I wrote the stuff *before* I understood the issue; in other words, this is how I tried (!) to do it before I made the cells store.

I am guessing yes, so I will charge ahead with my thoughts: basically

...

you need to make the lookup itself establish a dependency. I had assumed that this what you had done when you said you had created a cells-aware store.

And you were assuming right -- That is, I hope what I did is what you mean. Indeed bwen-(c-)gethash (which I will rename to bwhen-in-c-store or sth like that) expands into some code that creates a dependency on a listener object in the store, which then in turn is kicked when the hash table is updated.

I

...

was guessing that behind the scenes there was a second hashtable with the same key but a value that was a list of the cells that had looked it up. (Or you could try stuffing the thing stored with a list of asking cells in the one hash-value.)

Indeed there are two hash tables, one with the actual stored stuff and one with auxiliary objects that are uses to toggle the update. This way we have two hash table lookups for every access, so maybe it would make sense to keep the two in a cons in one table. But hold on, I hear "premature optimization".

I was not thinking about efficiency, I was thinking about (possibly!) cleaner design less likely to be midcoded: I want to get all the information about this hash key as a single logically related chunk, not pull in the properties of the logical chunk one at a time from different hash tables per property. Then I can pass this chunk around to other functions as one parameter, for example. But that is beside the point.

...

That would have gotten you into c-link, c-unlink, and other

...

good stuff.

Not sure whether we are on the same page. I have register-listener, kick-listener, and unregister-listener as internal methods on the store. I assume we're talking similar ideas here. I like your naming convention, tho.

<g> We might be on the same page talking different languages and that is the problem: cells get optimized away when they are "unlinked" to a dependency. You created dependency links in another language if you will and something got lost in translation (great movie).

The "other language" was that of "registered listener", which of course c-optimize-way knows not about.

Can you re-implement such that the linking API Just Works(tm)?

Here I left unstated my preference for re-engineering around link/unlink and the alternative of telling c-optimize-away about an alternative way of encoding inter-cell dependency. That preference will change rapidly if there is some way c-link/unlink will not work for a hashtable-based namespace.

kt

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Ken Tilton kennytilton@optonline.net wrote:

I was not thinking about efficiency, I was thinking about (possibly!) cleaner design less likely to be midcoded: I want to get all the information about this hash key as a single logically related chunk, not pull in the properties of the logical chunk one at a time from different hash tables per property. Then I can pass this chunk around to other functions as one parameter, for example. But that is beside the point.

I came to understand that before I even read your mail -- and committed the change yesterday already. Now we're having a cons of the link and the stored data in the hash table and a bunch of accessor/setf functions which do the right thing.

I'll respond to the other points in a second.

Peter