On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves@caesar.elte.hu> wrote:Yes, it is. Here are the bytecodes for your suggestion:On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves@caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Chris Cunningham wrote:
Hi. Reopening this thread - probably tomorrow will implement 'better' solution (with documentation).
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 10.02.2018, at 20:36, Tony Garnock-Jones <tonyg@leastfixedpoint.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/10/2018 07:02 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>> So,
>> a perform: {#or:. #xor:. #and:} atRandom with: b
>> would just work for that imaginary interpreter if b were a Boolean.
>
> Yes, that "interpreter" works just fine today, if b is a Boolean. It's
> the case where b is a Boolean-producing expression - such as in a "lazy"
> interpreter - that doesn't work without Fabio's proposed change.
>
> I went and looked at the ANSI standard (draft), btw [1].
>
> There, #xor: is specified as taking only a boolean.
>
> So this would be an extension, potentially affecting portability, for
> what that's worth these days.
>
> I think the performance objection has been well-refuted, and I see the
> consistency benefit as being real, but probably pretty limited, and I
> kind of don't like the potential portability implications.
I presume the main "feeling" here is parallelity:
#& takes an evaluated boolean #and: takes an unevaluated block
#| takes an evaluated boolean #or: takes an unevaluated block
#xor: takes an evaluated boolean but looks like #and: and #or:,
So it seems to belong to the right side, and then we think again about
the left side, come up with symbols, only to find that #~= and #~~ are already there.
So, just lets go all the way and document #xor: better, not making take it a block,
maybe pointing out that #~= ist typically better fitted…
Best regards
-Tobias
So, I have written some tests for speed and 'ensuring the arguments are booleans', with another proposed solution.
First, speed:
#xor: base
#~= is 124% slower (or 2-1/4 as much time as existing xor: method)
#~~ is 75% faster
#cbcXor: is 32% slower
Note: for real speed, use ~~ , not ~= !
Why cbcXor: ? It is the only one that makes sure the arguments are boolean - fails otherwise.
Here is a simpler and faster alternative:
True >> #xor: aBoolean
aBoolean ifTrue: [ ^false ] ifFalse: [ ^true ]
False >> #xor: aBoolean
aBoolean ifTrue: [ ^true ] ifFalse: [ ^false ]
and is this noticeably slower?
True >> #xor: aBoolean
^aBoolean ifTrue: [ false ] ifFalse: [ true ]
False >> #xor: aBoolean
^aBoolean ifTrue: [ true ] ifFalse: [ false ]
33 <10> pushTemp: 0
34 <99> jumpFalse: 37
35 <71> pushConstant: true
36 <90> jumpTo: 38
37 <72> pushConstant: false
38 <7C> returnTop
And for my variant:
33 <10> pushTemp: 0
34 <98> jumpFalse: 36
35 <79> return: true
36 <7A> return: false
I measured the latter to be 14% faster.For xor: it's hardly worth it. Nicer if the compiler and decompiler did the transformation...
Levente
but I would much prefer to see either
Boolean>>xor: aBooleanOrBlock
^ aBooleanOrBlock value not
or
True >> #xor: aBooleanOrBlock
^aBooleanOrBlock value ifTrue: [ false ] ifFalse: [ true ]
False >> #xor: aBooleanOrBlock
^aBooleanOrBlock value ifTrue: [ true ] ifFalse: [ false ]
The lack of symmetry with and: and or: is, IMO, bad.
Levente
Tests to run:
First, install
True>>cbcXor: boolean
^boolean isFalse
True>>isTrue
^true
True>>isFalse
^false
False>>cbcXor: boolean
^boolean isTrue
False>>isFalse
^true
False>>isTrue
^false
"Setup"
pairs := #( true false true true false false false true ).
invalidPairs := { true. 1. true. #[ 1 3 0 9 ]. true. 'abc'. false. 1. false. #[ 1 3 0 9 ]. false. 'abc'. 'abc'. true. #[ 1 3 0 9 ]. false. }.
methods := {
[:f :s| ].
[:f :s| f xor: s].
[:f :s| f cbcXor: s].
[:f :s| f ~= s].
[:f :s| f ~~ s].
}.
"Validity Test"
validCheck := methods collect: [:m|
{
m sourceString.
#( true false false true ) = (pairs pairsCollect: [:a :b| [m value: a value: b] on: Error do: [#error]])
ifTrue: ['Valid'] ifFalse: ['ERRORS'].
pairs pairsCollect: [:a :b| [m value: a value: b] on: Error do: [#error]].
}].
"all methods are valid"
"Testing that non-booleans actually result in errors, and not false positive/negatives"
invalidCheck := methods collect: [:m|
{
m sourceString.
((invalidPairs pairsCollect: [:a :b| [m value: a value: b] on: Error do: [#error]]) select: [:r| r = #error]) size = 8
ifTrue: ['Valid'] ifFalse: ['ERRORS'].
invalidPairs pairsCollect: [:a :b| [m value: a value: b] on: Error do: [#error]].
}].
"Only #cbcXor: correctly fails all of these. Some interesting results..."
"Timing test. Need to run 10,000,000 to get reasonable distinctions on my machine."
timing := methods collect: [:m|
{ m sourceString. [[10000000 timesRepeat: [pairs pairsDo: m]] timeToRun] on: Error do: [#invalid]. }
].
"And showing percentage slower"
base := timing first second.
bench := timing second second - base.
timing allButFirst collect: [:res| { res first. this := res second - base. ((this - bench) * 100 / bench) rounded. }].
Thanks,
cbc
--
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
--_,,,^..^,,,_best, Eliot