[racket] obtaining the location of an identifier

You may be able to avoid some of those steps by rewriting the binding forms
into macros that rewrite the uses. And it may be possible to use stop-lists
in a good way to avoid having to actually write too much boilerplate for
traversing expression forms that are irrelevant to you.

And depending on what your'e doing, you may even find it easier/better to
write your own language that has its own bindings form directly (and expand
into macros that rewrite the uses).

Sorry for the terse help. Good luck!

Robby


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Emina Torlak <emina at eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> I believe Robby's solution will work.  It's basically similar to what I
> had in mind, but I was hoping I'd be able to avoid it :)
>
> The crux of the issue is the need for unique identifiers for variable
> locations.  I also track updates to vectors and structs, for example, and
> this is easy precisely because I can use their identities to compute the
> "location" of the update.  So, boxing values in "raw" variables will have
> the same effect.
>
> In terms of implementation, though, it'll be trickier.  As far as I can
> tell, this approach involves whole-module analysis and transformation:
>
> * Expand the module completely.
> * Find all uses of set! and collect their targets.
> * Rewrite the def and all uses of target variables to perform auto boxing
> and unboxing.
>
> If there are tricks/constructs that I should use for the above steps, I'd
> love to hear them.   Or, of course, if there is some way to obtain variable
> location identifiers from the runtime, that would be great to know as well.
>
> Emina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Robby Findler <
> robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>> I didn't try it, but you it might work to use local-expand and then find
>> all the binding forms and then rewrite them to use boxes (or some other
>> source of uniqueness you might have around).
>>
>> Robby
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Emina Torlak <emina at eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> This is how my solution currently works, but unfortunately, it's not
>>> quite right.  Here is a small example that demonstrates why, assuming the
>>> implementation based on free-id-table:
>>>
>>> (define (cell init)
>>>   (let ([x init])
>>>     (case-lambda
>>>       [() x]
>>>       [(v) (set! x v)])))
>>>
>>> (define foo (cell 0))
>>> (define bar (cell 1))
>>>
>>> > (foo 2)
>>> > (bar 3)
>>> > (foo)
>>> 2
>>> > (bar)
>>> 3
>>> > (dict->list global)
>>> '((.#<syntax:18:17 x> . 3))
>>>
>>> In the above scenario, I need the global map to contain two bindings:
>>>  one for the location of 'foo.x' and the other for the location of 'bar.x.'
>>>
>>>
>>> Emina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <
>>> samth at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that just identifiers and `free-id-table`s should work here.
>>>> Here's your example:
>>>>
>>>> #lang racket
>>>>
>>>> (require syntax/id-table (only-in racket [set! #%set!]))
>>>>
>>>> (define global (make-free-id-table))
>>>>
>>>> (define-syntax-rule (location-of id) #'id)
>>>>
>>>> (define-syntax-rule (set! id expr)
>>>>   (let ([v expr])
>>>>     (dict-set! global (location-of id) v)
>>>>     (#%set! id v)))
>>>>
>>>> > (define x 1)
>>>> > (set! x 2)
>>>> > (set! x 3)
>>>> > (for/list ([(k v) (in-dict global)]) (list k v))
>>>> '((.#<syntax:4:8 x> 3))
>>>>
>>>> Also at https://gist.github.com/samth/7558673
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Emina Torlak <emina at eecs.berkeley.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I'm using Racket to implement a language for which I need to track
>>>> state
>>>> > updates---in particular, variable mutation using set!.  For example,
>>>> > consider this module definition:
>>>> >
>>>> > #lang racket
>>>> >
>>>> > (require (only-in racket [set! #%set!]))
>>>> >
>>>> > (define global (make-hash))
>>>> >
>>>> > (define-syntax-rule (location-of id)
>>>> >   (#%variable-reference id)) ; doesn't quite do the right thing
>>>> >
>>>> > (define-syntax-rule (set! id expr)
>>>> >   (let ([val expr])
>>>> >     (hash-set! global (location-of id) val)
>>>> >     (#%set! id val)))
>>>> >
>>>> > When I evaluate the following sequence of forms against the above
>>>> > definition, I would like the global hash map to contain just one
>>>> binding
>>>> > that maps the location for 'x' to the value 2.  With the above
>>>> > implementation I get two map entries, since variable-reference
>>>> doesn't quite
>>>> > do what I hoped it did:
>>>> >
>>>> >> (define x 0)
>>>> >> (set! x 1)
>>>> >> (set! x 2)
>>>> >> x
>>>> > 2
>>>> >> global
>>>> > '#hash((#<variable-reference> . 1) (#<variable-reference> . 2))
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there another construct in Racket that I could use for this
>>>> purpose?  If
>>>> > not, can something like this be implemented and how much work would it
>>>> > entail?
>>>> >
>>>> > I have a purely macro-based solution that works for the most part,
>>>> but it's
>>>> > fragile and there are corner cases for which it is just wrong.  So,
>>>> before
>>>> > trying to fix that, I was wondering if there is a nicer way to solve
>>>> it by
>>>> > somehow getting handles for variable locations that are comparable
>>>> using eq?
>>>> > or equal?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks!
>>>> >
>>>> > Emina
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________
>>>> >   Racket Users list:
>>>> >   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________
>>>   Racket Users list:
>>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20131120/a4d9f492/attachment.html>