Arc Forum | "Just because the cost is paid once rather than once for each feature doesn't me...

Arc Forum

1 point by Pauan 4670 days ago | link | parent

"Just because the cost is paid once rather than once for each feature doesn't mean it isn't a cost. If we didn't use # for anything else, we could use it in symbols too. (Penknife allows # in symbols, for instance.)"

I know, which is why I mentioned that we would probably need to write an Arc reader in order to unreserve | And if we did that, we would then also need to decide whether to use # or something else.

---

"If we take Racket as a starting point, then # is a heavily overloaded escape character and pretty hard to get rid of. How about changing it to \? :-p Then characters would be written not as #\a but as \\a --or maybe \c"a", if we insist not to use \ for anything but escaping."

Using \ as an escape does seem better than using # to be honest. If we were to write a reader in Arc (which I support, by the way), I think it'd be interesting to try out \ rather than #

---

"Are you saying that makes sense? XD"

I like it better than Python's "you can only store hashable things in keys" approach. Or JavaScript's insane "all keys are coerced to a string, so all Objects are put into the same key" approach.

---

"Anyway, I suspect you never meant mutable keys made that much sense, just that they make sense as long as we don't actually mutate them. :-p I'm fine with that, just like I'm fine with treating strings as immutable."

Yeah, something like that. I suspect Racket behaves that way for performance reasons, but ideally I think it'd be nice if it did update the hashes, so that mutable keys would behave as expected.

---

"(I guess one of the paranoid alternatives is to freeze anything used as a table key.)"

That's basically Python's approach: only hashable things are allowed as keys in objects.

2 points by rocketnia 4669 days ago | link

"I know, which is why I mentioned[...]"

Yeah, I know. ^_^

---

"I like it better than Python's "you can only store hashable things in keys" approach."

Well... you can only use hashable things as keys in Racket too. (How else would hash tables work?) Almost everything in Racket is hashable, but it's possible to make things that kinda aren't, like this:

  arc> ($:define-struct foo (dummy) #:property prop:equal+hash (list (lambda args #t) (lambda args (error "Can't primary hash this.")) (lambda args (error "Can't secondary hash this."))))
  #<void>
  arc> (= my-table (table))
  #hash()
  arc> (= my-foo $.make-foo!dummy-val)
  #<foo>
  arc> (= my-table.my-foo 2)
  Error: "Can't primary hash this."

This is using the 'equal? hash. I don't know if there's a way to make something in Racket that's unhashable with regard to 'eq? or 'eqv?.

You can get at these hash values directly using 'equal-hash-code and friends. http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/hashtables.html

-----

1 point by Pauan 4669 days ago | link

"Well... you can only use hashable things as keys in Racket too."

Hm... odd, I remember in Python, that you weren't able to use things like lists (which are mutable) as keys... but I guess I remember wrong because I just tried it and it works. Not sure what the problem was that I had with Python's hash tables...

---

By the way, I feel like hash table keys should only use eq, not equal...

-----

1 point by rocketnia 4669 days ago | link

"By the way, I feel like hash table keys should only use eq, not equal..."

Racket has eq-based tables too those, and I wouldn't want 'equal? for weak table keys. However, if I want to use a list or something as a key, it's likely because I want to look something up using multiple values, in which case 'equal? is useful. (In those cases, the ability to intern something into an immutable data structure 'equal? to it would probably be just as useful....)

-----