* [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
@ 2014-01-24 5:56 Mark H Weaver
2014-01-24 9:39 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2014-01-24 10:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark H Weaver @ 2014-01-24 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]
Here's an implementation of SRFI-111 Boxes for stable-2.0.
What do you think?
Mark
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 6921 bytes --]
From 625b1a68a7fcbe41abfd499937ecdf627a31530c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:21:17 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes.
* module/srfi/srfi-111.scm: New file.
* module/Makefile.am (SRFI_SOURCES): Add srfi/srfi-111.scm.
* test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test: New file.
* test-suite/Makefile.am (SCM_TESTS): Add tests/srfi-111.test.
* doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI-111): New node.
---
doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi | 25 +++++++++++++++
module/Makefile.am | 3 +-
module/srfi/srfi-111.scm | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++
test-suite/Makefile.am | 1 +
test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 module/srfi/srfi-111.scm
create mode 100644 test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test
diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
index 66d5bd1..8845c85 100644
--- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ get the relevant SRFI documents from the SRFI home page
* SRFI-88:: Keyword objects.
* SRFI-98:: Accessing environment variables.
* SRFI-105:: Curly-infix expressions.
+* SRFI-111:: Boxes.
@end menu
@@ -5181,6 +5182,30 @@ directive @code{#!curly-infix-and-bracket-lists}. For example:
For more information on reader options, @xref{Scheme Read}.
+@node SRFI-111
+@subsection SRFI-111 Boxes.
+@cindex SRFI-111
+
+@uref{http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-111/srfi-111.html, SRFI-111}
+provides boxes: objects with a single mutable cell.
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} box value
+Return a newly allocated box whose contents is initialized to
+@var{value}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} box? obj
+Return true if @var{obj} is a box, otherwise return false.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} unbox box
+Return the current contents of @var{box}.
+@end deffn
+
+@deffn {Scheme Procedure} set-box! box value
+Set the contents of @var{box} to @var{value}.
+@end deffn
+
@c srfi-modules.texi ends here
@c Local Variables:
diff --git a/module/Makefile.am b/module/Makefile.am
index 8a7befd..47b9c2c 100644
--- a/module/Makefile.am
+++ b/module/Makefile.am
@@ -295,7 +295,8 @@ SRFI_SOURCES = \
srfi/srfi-67.scm \
srfi/srfi-69.scm \
srfi/srfi-88.scm \
- srfi/srfi-98.scm
+ srfi/srfi-98.scm \
+ srfi/srfi-111.scm
RNRS_SOURCES = \
rnrs/base.scm \
diff --git a/module/srfi/srfi-111.scm b/module/srfi/srfi-111.scm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d3cd89
--- /dev/null
+++ b/module/srfi/srfi-111.scm
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+;;; srfi-111.scm -- SRFI 111 Boxes
+
+;; Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+;;
+;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+;; License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+;; version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+;;
+;; This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+;; Lesser General Public License for more details.
+;;
+;; You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+;; License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
+;; Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+
+(define-module (srfi srfi-111)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-9)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-9 gnu)
+ #:export (box box? unbox set-box!))
+
+(cond-expand-provide (current-module) '(srfi-111))
+
+(define-record-type <box>
+ (box value)
+ box?
+ (value unbox set-box!))
+
+(set-record-type-printer! <box>
+ (lambda (box port)
+ (display "#<box " port)
+ (display (number->string (object-address box) 16) port)
+ (display " value: ")
+ (write (unbox box) port)
+ (display ">" port)))
diff --git a/test-suite/Makefile.am b/test-suite/Makefile.am
index 01ffd1c..00f62fe 100644
--- a/test-suite/Makefile.am
+++ b/test-suite/Makefile.am
@@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ SCM_TESTS = tests/00-initial-env.test \
tests/srfi-69.test \
tests/srfi-88.test \
tests/srfi-105.test \
+ tests/srfi-111.test \
tests/srfi-4.test \
tests/srfi-9.test \
tests/statprof.test \
diff --git a/test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test b/test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e2d76c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+;;;; srfi-111.test --- Test suite for SRFI-111 (Boxes). -*- scheme -*-
+;;;;
+;;;; Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+;;;;
+;;;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+;;;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+;;;; License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+;;;; version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+;;;;
+;;;; This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+;;;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+;;;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+;;;; Lesser General Public License for more details.
+;;;;
+;;;; You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+;;;; License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
+;;;; Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+
+(define-module (test-srfi-111)
+ #:use-module (test-suite lib)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-111))
+
+(with-test-prefix "srfi-111"
+
+ (let ((test-vals '(#f #t #\space "string" -5 #e1e100 1e-30 #(a vector))))
+ (pass-if-equal "box and unbox"
+ test-vals
+ (map (lambda (x)
+ (unbox (box x)))
+ test-vals))
+
+ (pass-if "box?"
+ (and (box? (box 5))
+ (not (any box? test-vals))))
+
+ (pass-if-equal "set-box!"
+ "string"
+ (let ((b (box #f)))
+ (set-box! b "string")
+ (unbox b)))
+
+ (pass-if "eq? on boxes"
+ (let ((box1 (box #f))
+ (box2 (box #f)))
+ (and (eq? box1 box1)
+ (eq? box2 box2)
+ (not (eq? box1 box2)))))
+
+ (pass-if "eqv? on boxes"
+ (let ((box1 (box #f))
+ (box2 (box #f)))
+ (and (eqv? box1 box1)
+ (eqv? box2 box2)
+ (not (eqv? box1 box2)))))
+
+ (pass-if "equal? on boxes"
+ (let ((box1 (box "foo"))
+ (box2 (box "bar")))
+ (and (equal? box1 box1)
+ (equal? box2 box2)
+ (not (equal? box1 box2))
+ ;; Guile extension, not guaranteed by SRFI-111.
+ (begin (set-box! box2 (string #\f #\o #\o))
+ (equal? box1 box2)))))))
--
1.7.5.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-01-24 5:56 [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes Mark H Weaver
@ 2014-01-24 9:39 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2014-01-24 10:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-01-24 10:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer @ 2014-01-24 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guile-devel
Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
> Here's an implementation of SRFI-111 Boxes for stable-2.0.
> What do you think?
>
> Mark
Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable"
type? I can see two concrete differences:
* External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111)
* Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't
So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a
subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111.
This would eliminate type-disjointness between variables and boxes, make
boxes print with #<variable, make objects exist that are box? but error
when passed to unbox, and eliminate the extra record type. And as a
more "volatile" point, it would make boxes perform possibly a bit faster
now (direct C implementation, whereas records all have some overhead as
of now AFAIK), but a bit slower in theory given a perfect record-type
implementation (needn't check for boundness during `unbox').
I suppose that's more cons than pros after all? And very sorry if I'm
bikeshedding, I thought this was worth at least a mention and a quick
survey.
Taylan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-01-24 9:39 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
@ 2014-01-24 10:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-24 22:23 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-01-24 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable"
> type? I can see two concrete differences:
>
> * External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111)
>
> * Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't
>
> So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a
> subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111.
Even though both types are box-like, they represent conceptually
different things, so I think it’s better to keep them disjoint.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-01-24 10:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2014-03-24 22:23 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 17:01 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2014-03-24 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel
A late reply, but at least the year is right :)
On Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:57, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
>
>> Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable"
>> type? I can see two concrete differences:
>>
>> * External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111)
>>
>> * Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't
>>
>> So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a
>> subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111.
>
> Even though both types are box-like, they represent conceptually
> different things, so I think it’s better to keep them disjoint.
Why do you think so? To me, Guile's variables are boxes, and the
ability to make a variable unbound is a Guile extension.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-03-24 22:23 ` Andy Wingo
@ 2014-03-25 17:01 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-25 19:37 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-03-25 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Wingo; +Cc: guile-devel
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:57, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
>>
>>> Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable"
>>> type? I can see two concrete differences:
>>>
>>> * External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111)
>>>
>>> * Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't
>>>
>>> So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a
>>> subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111.
>>
>> Even though both types are box-like, they represent conceptually
>> different things, so I think it’s better to keep them disjoint.
>
> Why do you think so? To me, Guile's variables are boxes, and the
> ability to make a variable unbound is a Guile extension.
Tu put it differently, I don’t think it would buy us anything to make
variable SRFI-111 boxes. However, it could perhaps break code, and
would not allow for a separate type printer, which is useful.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-03-25 17:01 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2014-03-25 19:37 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 20:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2014-03-25 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel
On Tue 25 Mar 2014 18:01, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Tu put it differently, I don’t think it would buy us anything to make
> variable SRFI-111 boxes.
Dunno; variables are slightly cheaper than records. Their type checks
are easier and they take less memory.
> However, it could perhaps break code
In what way?
> and would not allow for a separate type printer, which is useful.
Not sure what this point is, as the external representation was not
specified in SRFI-111.
Perhaps we are miscommunicating -- I would change what we currently call
"variables" to be "boxes". WDYT?
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-03-25 19:37 ` Andy Wingo
@ 2014-03-25 20:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-25 20:31 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-03-25 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Wingo; +Cc: guile-devel
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Tue 25 Mar 2014 18:01, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Tu put it differently, I don’t think it would buy us anything to make
>> variable SRFI-111 boxes.
>
> Dunno; variables are slightly cheaper than records. Their type checks
> are easier and they take less memory.
>
>> However, it could perhaps break code
>
> In what way?
‘variable?’ would suddenly match any SRFI-111 box.
>> and would not allow for a separate type printer, which is useful.
>
> Not sure what this point is, as the external representation was not
> specified in SRFI-111.
I mean this:
#<variable 15cb830 value: #<procedure + (#:optional _ _ . _)>>
vs.
#<box 206f8c0 value: #<procedure + (#:optional _ _ . _)>>
I find it convenient that variables are distinguished.
> Perhaps we are miscommunicating -- I would change what we currently call
> "variables" to be "boxes". WDYT?
You mean just the name, or making them SRFI-111 boxes?
Anyway, I don’t feel strongly about this particular point, but I think
we’ve been deprecating a lot lately.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-03-25 20:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2014-03-25 20:31 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 21:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2014-03-25 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-devel
On Tue 25 Mar 2014 21:21, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>> However, it could perhaps break code
>>
>> In what way?
>
> ‘variable?’ would suddenly match any SRFI-111 box.
I would be OK with this FWIW -- eventually we could deprecate variable?
(though that would happen later in 2.2 I would think).
>> Perhaps we are miscommunicating -- I would change what we currently call
>> "variables" to be "boxes". WDYT?
>
> You mean just the name, or making them SRFI-111 boxes?
I mean making SRFI-111 boxes the same as Guile variables, and renaming
Guile variables to be "boxes", and eventually deprecating the old
variable names.
> Anyway, I don’t feel strongly about this particular point, but I think
> we’ve been deprecating a lot lately.
Have you noticed it in your non-core code? (Out of curiosity.)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-03-25 20:31 ` Andy Wingo
@ 2014-03-25 21:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-03-25 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Wingo; +Cc: guile-devel
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Tue 25 Mar 2014 21:21, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
>> Anyway, I don’t feel strongly about this particular point, but I think
>> we’ve been deprecating a lot lately.
>
> Have you noticed it in your non-core code? (Out of curiosity.)
Yes, supporting 2.0.5 to 2.0.11 in Guix without deprecation warnings
requires a bit of care (esp. in the web code, which has changed a lot.)
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes
2014-01-24 5:56 [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes Mark H Weaver
2014-01-24 9:39 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
@ 2014-01-24 10:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-01-24 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
> From 625b1a68a7fcbe41abfd499937ecdf627a31530c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:21:17 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes.
>
> * module/srfi/srfi-111.scm: New file.
> * module/Makefile.am (SRFI_SOURCES): Add srfi/srfi-111.scm.
> * test-suite/tests/srfi-111.test: New file.
> * test-suite/Makefile.am (SCM_TESTS): Add tests/srfi-111.test.
> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI-111): New node.
Fine with me!
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-25 21:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-01-24 5:56 [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes Mark H Weaver
2014-01-24 9:39 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2014-01-24 10:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-24 22:23 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 17:01 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-25 19:37 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 20:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-03-25 20:31 ` Andy Wingo
2014-03-25 21:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-01-24 10:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).