Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Bob
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: (Perl6) Groking Continuations (iterators)

by diotalevi (Canon)
on Apr 08, 2003 at 20:54 UTC ( #249078=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: (Perl6) Groking Continuations (iterators)
in thread (Perl6) Groking Continuations

Or you use closures to turn call-backs into iterators. Here I've altered the API a smidge because the original code used chdir() during the loop which is probably an unexpected side-effect. For anyone that is interested - Dominus is writing an excellent book on iterators and it includes a section on transforming recursive calls somewhat thusly. Here's a link to the book's web page (which you must all now go out and buy (when it is published)).

BTW - this doesn't explain continuations at all - I'm just presenting a different perl5-accessible solution to the problem that tye posed.

my $find = find('', ''); while (my $file = $find->()) { print join('/', @$file)."\n"; } sub find { my @todo = shift; my @results; return sub { while (@todo and not @results) { my $subdir = shift @todo; $subdir = "." if ! defined $subdir or $subdir eq ''; $subdir .= "/" if $subdir =~ m{[^/]$}; my @files= ( glob("$subdir.*"), glob("$subdir*") ); for my $file ( @files ) { next if $file =~ /\.\.?$/; if( ! -l $file && -d _ ) { push @todo, \ $file; } push @results, [ $subdir, substr($file,length($subdir) +) ]; } } return shift @results; }; }


Comment on Re: Re: (Perl6) Groking Continuations (iterators)
Download Code
Re^3: (Perl6) Groking Continuations (_!)
by tye (Cardinal) on Apr 08, 2003 at 21:45 UTC

    You've managed to lose another side effect. With your version, I can't use -x _ to see if the file that the iterator just handed to me is executable. I'd have to do another stat rather than using the results of the lstat that Perl so helpfully caches for me.

    So you compressed all of the different items from the stack into two stacks that you keep handy using a closure (rather than a more tradition Perl object). I like it.

    I agree that the chdir side-effect is problematic. Too bad Unix didn't provide an efficient way to save/restore chdir context (based on i-node instead of on a path string). I'd make the chdir optional with appropriate disclaimers in the documentation but that defeats the purpose of providing a simple example.

    I think I'll try this technique on File::KGlob::unbrac (well, using a closure would be cheating since those subroutines are still Perl4-compatible code, though). (:

    Thanks for the demonstration.

                    - tye
      Says tye:
      Too bad Unix didn't provide an efficient way to save/restore chdir context (based on i-node instead of on a path string).

      Many unixes now provide an fchdir call which does what you want; instead of a pathname, it accepts an open file descriptor and then sets the cwd to the directory pointed to by the descriptor. To save the old cwd, you simply open the current directory. After you've done chdir, you can fchdir to the descriptor returned by the open when you want to go back.

      You can't have a system call that simply accepts an i-number, because such a call would bypass the filesystem's permission controls.

      --
      Mark Dominus
      Perl Paraphernalia

        Well, you probably could, but that would hardly be any more efficient than using a string path (trace up the .. chain instead of down the path of given directory names).

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Re: Re: (Perl6) Groking Continuations (iterators)
by oylee (Pilgrim) on Apr 08, 2003 at 23:17 UTC
    Actually, this does have to do with continuations, or at least the notion of CPS (continuation-passing-style). The basic idea of CPS is to turn all non-tail recursive calls to tail calls (which is equivalent to iteration) by explicitly managing your stack. This is done by adding an additional parameter that represents the explicit continuation. The end result is that your heap allocation grows larger, but at least you won't blow up the call stack due to all those non-tail recursive calls _if_ the language you're working in 'properly' handles tail calls.
    For example, a version of factorial that becomes deeply recursive:
    sub fact { my $num = shift; return 1 unless ($num); return $num * fact($num - 1); } sub tail_fact { my ($num, $k) = @_; return $k->(1) unless ($num); return tail_fact($num - 1, sub { return $num * $k->(shift); }); }

    Here we're manually representing the rest of the computation (the continuation) as an anonymous sub that keeps growing and growing... of course, the other alternative is to just represent the actual number we've accumulated thus far, but then that'd just be accumulator-passing-style.
    Of course, none of this really matters since Perl doesn't handle tail calls properly. It'll still warn you that a "Deep recursion on xxx" unless you change it to a strictly iterative version using while or for or one of those guys.

      Perl can do something that closely resembles an optimized tail call, but it only does so if you tell it to.
      sub tail_fact { my ($num, $k) = @_; return $k->(1) unless ($num); @_ = ($num - 1, sub { return $num * $k->(shift); }); goto &tail_fact; }

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://249078]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-04-20 12:32 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (485 votes), past polls