[plt-dev] Suggestion: `with-hash'

Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Mar 27, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>> Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>> Here's a suggestion for a small addition to `scheme/base', with the
>>> obvious meaning:
>>>
>>>   (with-hash <hash> <key> <expr>)
>>>
>>>     Lookup <key> in <hash> and return the found value.  If there is
>>>     no value evaluate <expr>, store it in <hash> for the <key>, and
>>>     return it.
>>>  [...]
>>>
>>> Any objections?
>> I don't like the name.
> 
> That's the best I could think of -- and the good point in it is that
> it's a strong hint that it's a macro.

It shouldn't be a macro. A macro that is really really almost just a 
procedure is a dinky kind of macro.

>> I think you should make it a procedure (use the normal hash
>> value/thunk convention) and name it 'hash-ref/default!' or something
>> similarly descriptive.
> 
> That's actually a point that I forgot to mention.  At some point,
> Matthew made `hash-ref' accept a plain value for a default rather than
> a thunk.  The reason is that
> 
>   (or (hash-ref t k #f) ...stuff..)
> 
> is faster than putting stuff in a thunk.  This is especially important
> with hash tables, when you're trying to speed things up.

The docs say 'hash-ref' accepts a third value, which if a procedure is 
applied to get the default value and which otherwise is interpreted as 
the default value. That's what I meant by "the normal hash value/thunk 
convention".

>> Also, how about making it generic instead and adding it to
>> scheme/dict?  I'd rather procedures for common usage patterns of
>> dictionaries were put in scheme/dict than added to the base
>> language.
> 
> That would of course be useful as a dict method too -- but there's no
> contradiction in having both.  (As with other methods that correspond
> to specific functions -- you pay for the dispatch when you prefer a
> generic code.)

I'm saying it sounds more like a library procedure than a base language 
procedure. I want 'hash-push!' and 'hash-set!/error-if-already-present' 
and other hash (or dict) procedures, but I don't think they belong in 
scheme/base.

Ryan

> On Mar 27, Henk Boom wrote:
>> If the last argument were a thunk then it would almost make sense to
>> just call it 'hash-ref!'. That feels like an oxymoron though =).
> 
> That *was* my first choice -- but I didn't want that name for a macro.
>