Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
4 points by binx 5915 days ago | link | parent

It seems that all of us have put too much emphasis on premature optimizations and fancy features... The first priority may be to simulate the whole arc's core semantics and make the compiler able to compile itself.

2 points by almkglor 5915 days ago | link

True. I'm trying to hack the macro stuff, to not much effect. Erk.

In fact quite a bit of arc.arc is now compileable, although you do have to transform (def ...) to (set .... (fn ...)) manually. So really what's needed now is macros. Also trying to think of how best to implement optional args and destructuring args - probably by just hacking off rest arguments (for optional args) and let's (for destructures)


2 points by stefano 5914 days ago | link

Macros should be easier to implement once the compiler is able to compile itself, because this way the compiler and the compiled macro have the same internal representation of data structures, so passing arguments between the two shouldn't be too hard.


3 points by almkglor 5914 days ago | link

> once the compiler is able to compile itself

There are several uses of macros in the compiler, unfortunately. In particular the 'def macro is too much of a convenience. So in order for the compiler to easily compile itself, it first has to implement macros. Chicken, meet egg.

Ah heck, maybe I should just use 'eval now and implement a compiled 'eval interpreter later that can interpret code and yet allow interpreted code to call compiled code and vice versa.

In fact I already have a bit of a sketch for this (which is necessary if we want to allow compiled programs to use 'eval). Basically put interpreted '(fn ...) forms into a 'interpreted-fn annotated type together with surrounding environment, add an entry to the 'calls* table (via defcall, say) for 'interpreted-fn to, say, a $$interpreted-fn-apply function which binds the parameters into an environment table and calls the 'eval interpreter.

Of course this requires some changes in the base system: we need at the very least a %symeval primitive which when given a symbol will give its global binding, a %symset primitive which will modify a symbol's global binding, and obviously we need a link from the symbol to the GLOBAL() array (and dynamically create new containers for created symbols - if it's not in the GLOBAL() array then the compiled code would never read that global anyway, only the interpreted code ever will).

The rest of the interpreter is just a standard scheme interpreter, the only real support we need is to be able to call compiled-from-interpreted and interpreted-from-compiled, and the reading and binding of global symbols, including those that aren't in the GLOBAL table.

Ouch, my head hurts. And sacado's the one doing the Unicode strings. LOL


5 points by kens 5914 days ago | link

Would it be worth implementing 'def directly? This would give a lot more functionality right away. This could be temporary until macros are implemented.


1 point by almkglor 5914 days ago | link

Possibly. There's a bunch of "macro" transformations in xe.arc, possibly I'm just a bit too lazy to think. However I don't like depending on those transforms, I want to do it "properly"


1 point by sacado 5913 days ago | link

I think that's what I'm going to do, until macros are implemented : make 'def a special form, automatically transformed into (set foo (fn...


1 point by stefano 5913 days ago | link

For the global vars problem, a solution could be to associate top level values directly with the symbol, this way a symbol would consist of three values: its string representation, its global value (initially a special 'unbound value') and a property list.


1 point by almkglor 5913 days ago | link

The current style has an optimization where all globals are simply referenced directly from an array in O(1). I'd rather that symbols point to entries in this array, because symbol-as-global-variable lookups are expected to be completely nonexistent if 'eval isn't involved in the program anyway (who uses 'eval in a language with 'read?). Only newly created symbols must have allocated variable values, and only for the benefit of 'eval'ed code - we can already know the global variables in the compiled code, because the compiler need that info anyway.


  struct {
    long type; /*T_SYM*/
    char* stringform;
  #ifdef EVAL_USED
    obj* binding;
  } symbol;

   int main(){
     /*compiler generated only if eval is used*/
     obj sym; symbol* sympt;
     sym = SYM2OBJ("globalvar0");
     sympt = (symbol*) sym;
     sympt->binding = &GLOBAL(0);
     sym = SYM2OBJ("globalvar1");
     sympt = (symbol*) sym;
     sympt->binding = &GLOBAL(1);
This way the current performance is retained (global variable lookups are O(1)).


2 points by stefano 5912 days ago | link

I don't know how much this solution will be once support for a dynamic load (e.g. from the REPL) will have to be implemented, because you'll have to keep an index of the last global variables created across different compilation sessions. With threads it gets even more complicated (mutex on the index?). With symbols it would be simpler to implement a dynamic load or definition of a global var from the REPL. The price paid is a slightly slower access to global variables, because 2 references to memory are necessary for every refrence to a global var. Global variables lookups are still O(1) though, e.g: sym->binding for read access and sym->binding = value for write access.


2 points by almkglor 5912 days ago | link

> the last global variables created across different compilation sessions

I don't understand this part. I was proposing that 'eval would be an interpreter, not a compiler. My intentions was that compiled code would be statically generated (the way it's done now), so 'eval cannot possibly compile code. It would be a compiled interpreter of Arc. arc2c is a static compiler, so 'eval won't add ever add compiled code; the best it can do is create a 'interpreted-fn object that contains an interpreted function's code (as a list) and the enclosing interpreted environment

So a dynamic load would just interpret the expressions in the file being loaded:

  (set load
    (fn (f)
      (w/infile s f
        (whilet e (read s)
          (eval e)))))
'eval would be able to access the global variable table indirectly via the symbols and %symeval/%symset.

Basically, 'eval would be compiled to something like this:

  (set eval
    (fn (e (o env nil))
      (if (isa e 'symbol)
          (if env (lookup-environment env e)
                  (%symeval e))
Also: if the compiled code doesn't reference it, it won't be in the GLOBAL() array. The reason is simple: the compiled code won't reference it, ever. If 'globalvar isn't in GLOBAL(), then it does not exist in the compiled code. So it doesn't matter that it's not in the GLOBAL() array - the compiled code never referenced that global, so it won't ever use an index into the GLOBAL() array to refer to it. The interpreted code might, but that's why we have an indirect reference connected to the symeval.

Also, when I say O(1), I mean O(1) with the number one, as in only one layer of indirection (an index within a table). If global bindings are kept with the symbol only, then all global accesses - even precompiled ones - need (1) to find the symbol and (2) get the binding, for a total of O(2).

In other words: 'compile-file compiles, but it creates a new executable which is never connected to the process that ran 'compile-file. 'eval just interprets, and if the interpreted code mutates a global of the program, then that global gets mutated for real, in the program (what are you doing using 'eval on untrusted coe anyway). But if the interpreted code mutates a global that is never used in the program, it just creates a new global variable, one which is never referenced by the program (by definition, because the program never used it).


1 point by stefano 5912 days ago | link

I thought eval compiled code, loaded it and then executed it. I've been mistaken. With the compiled code completely static then your strategy is better than assigning values to symbols.