RE: reference initialization
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date

by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
Date:   (:) 
From:  Hongwei Xi <hwxi@e...> 
Subject:  Re: reference initialization 
> When you need more complex initializations, then you need a smarter > version of Array.init (still you want to keep the same good properties > as the simple version). > > For instance, a simple generalization of Array.init, that allows > access to the locations that are already initialized into the array, > could be written as: > > exception Uninitialized_access of int;; > > let initialize f n = > if n = 0 then [] else > let get v i j = > if j < i && j >= 0 then v.(j) else raise (Uninitialized_access j) in > let v = Array.make n (f (get [] 0) 0) in > for i = 1 to n  1 do > v.(i) < f (get v i) i > done; > v;; > > Using initialize, we can easily define a vector containing the > fibonacci numbers: > > let init_fib g = function >  0  1 > 1 >  n > g (n  1) + g (n  2);; > > let fib10 = initialize init_fib 10;; > val fib10 : int array = [1; 1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21; 34; 55] This looks pretty neat to me. Probably 'initialize' can be implemented in C so that we can squeeze out some extra efficiency. > Initialize provides the following properties: > > If v is defined as ``let v = Array.initialize f n'' then > > 1) v is completely initialized: > for all i, v.(i) has been assigned exactly once during the > initialization of v > 2) not yet initialized locations in v are never accessed during the > initialization process: > for all i, for all j, if j > i then the location j is not accessed during > the initialization of v.(i) > 3) elements of v are values computed by f: > for all i, v.(i) = f (fun i > (Array.sub v 0 (i  1)).(i)) (i) > > Once more there is no need to dynamically check accesses to a vector > initialized unsing the function initialize. Yes, I thought along very much the same line. > 3) New random_initialize function for ``random'' initialization >  > > Now, you can still argue that you have even more complex > initialisation schemes: then you need to define a more complex > initialization function. For instance: > > [random_initialize f i0 n] returns a vector [v] of length [n], > initialized using the function [f], starting from index [i0]. The > function [f] takes two arguments, an access function [g : int > 'a] > that gives access to already initialized elements of the vector [v], > and an index [i]; given those arguments [f] returns a pair [next, a], > where [a] is the value to be stored at index [i] of vector [v], and > [next] the index of the next element of [v] to initialize. [f] should > raise the predefined exception [Exit] to mean that index [i] is out of > range, presumably at the end of initialization. > > The following properties hold: > > If v is defined as ``let v = random_initialize f i0 n'' then > > 1) v is completely initialized: > for all i, v.(i) has been assigned exactly once during the > initialization of v > 2) not yet initialized locations in v are never accessed during the > initialization process: > for all i, for all j, if v.(j) has not yet been assigned then the > location j is not accessed during the initialization of v.(i) > 3) all elements of v are values computed by calls to f. > > Implementation > > (* Already_initialized is raised when there is an attempt to > initialize an array location more than once. *) > exception Already_initialized of int;; > > (* Partial_initialization is raised when there is a location that is > not initialized at the end of initilization. *) > exception Partial_initialization of int;; > > let random_initialize f i0 n = > if n = 0 then [] else > let initialized = Array.make n 0 in > let set v i a = > if initialized.(i) = 0 then (initialized.(i) < 1; v.(i) < a) > else raise (Already_initialized i) in > let get v j = > if j >= 0 && j < n && initialized.(j) = 1 then v.(j) > else raise (Uninitialized_access j) in > let nexti0, a0 = f (get []) i0 in > let v = Array.make n a0 in > set v 0 a0; > let rec init i = > let nexti, ai = f (get v) i in > set v i ai; > init nexti in > try init nexti0 with >  Exit > > for i = 0 to n  1 do > if initialized.(i) = 0 then raise (Partial_initialization i) > done; > Array.init n (fun i > v.(i));; > > Example: we can define a suitable initialization function for your > example of combinatorial numbers, > > let init_chooses n get i = > let next i j = if j <> i then j else n + 1 in > let ai i = get (i  1) * (n  i + 1) / i in > if i = 0 then (next 0 n, 1) else > if i = n then (next n 1, 1) else > if i > n then raise Exit else > if i <= n / 2 then (next i (n  i), ai i) > else (next i (n  i + 1), get (n  i));; > > let chooses n = random_initialize (init_chooses n) 0 (n + 1);; > > let v4 = chooses 4;; > val v4 : int array = [1; 4; 6; 4; 1] I don't know about this. It seems a bit too involved to me (at this moment) > 4) Further work >  > > The general vector initialization function should probably take as > argument f a function that uses 2 functions get and set to handle the > initialized vector. In any case, the properties 1, 2, and 3 should > still hold. > > 5) Conclusion >  > > I'm not sure we need a complex additional machinery to solve a problem > that can be elegantly solved with some library functions (admittedly > at the price of some linear additional cost at initialization time); Me neither (at this moment). > however, following Xavier, I would also be glad to read articles on > dependant type systems and their applications to vector initialisation > (if any); Sorry. I don't have any paper on this subject :) > also, I would be delighted to try such an experimental type > system, if it is tractable in practice (I mean, we don't want a type > system that obliges the programmer to rewrite his pattern matchings in > a strange and awful maneer, nor a type system that emits error > messages that are incredibly more difficult to understand than those > of usual ML typecheckers, nor a type system that is so slow that > modern machines are turned into good old Apple IIs, don't we ?). These are very legitimate points. The design of DML actually addresses all these points in certain ways as our goal is also towards having a practical programming system. > I mean, we don't want a type system that obliges the programmer to > rewrite his pattern matchings in a strange and awful maneer The problem here is that unlike ML, sequentiality of pattern matching must be taken into consideration in DML, but this can be done automatically using Laville's approach (with some modification). > type system that emits error messages that are incredibly more > difficult to understand than those of usual ML typecheckers I find that in practice, the location of a type error in a DML program is reported very accurately (mainly because that the user has to provide dependent type annotations). Unless one uses the type system to encode sophisticated information, the error messages are not so hard to understand. Of course, one needs to gain some exprience first but this is the same thing with ML. > nor a type system that is so slow that modern machines are turned > into good old Apple IIs, don't we ?). Yes, typechecking can be slow, but this is also the case in ML. I recently used Okasaki's parsing combinators to implement parsers; I noticed that ML typechecking in this case is indeed much slower (because larger higherorder types are involved) than average cases. A strong point of DML is its compatibility with ML. If you don't use dependent types, you won't pay the price (no typechecking slowdown). One can essentially just build a frontend. For OCaml, one may simply first try whether it is effective to eliminate run time array bound checks; if it is good, further work can be done to support dependent refinement types; if it is not, then it is nothing more than a frontend. We need to make *no* changes to OCaml's backend! > also, I would be delighted to try such an experimental type system I would be happy to write such a frontend for OCaml, but I have some serious difficulties: (1) I am no expert of the OCaml frontend and often have serious difficulty figuring out the code, which is neat but has almost none comments. (2) The syntax for OCaml is evolving so fast recently; this makes it too difficult for me to support such a frontend even if it is written. If these problems can be addressed, such a frontend can be quickly constructed (my estimate: no more than 3 person * months work). Best Regards, Hongwei