Hi Julian, "Julian Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I've tried -- at length. And so far I haven't been able to top > the performance of the reference implementation. In fact, it actually > seems to be fairly efficient Did you run some sort of "benchmark"? > From what I can see, there are > only a few areas in which the reference implementation could be > improved by Guile-specific features: > > * Native hash tables (Marc's code has its own hash table implementation) > * Use of `hashq-get-handle' (the reference implementation relies on > the identity of an `undefined' object) The reference implementation strives to create a perfect hash table, while Guile's built-in hash tables may not be perfect all the time (there can be collisions, although tables are automatically resized once in a while). So, theoretically, the reference implementation's solution is more efficient. OTOH, as is often the case with Guile, it may turn out to be faster to use Guile's built-in hash tables, especially since they may end up being "perfect" (i.e., collision-free) in most cases here; in addition, running one `make-perfect-hash-table' for each `lambda*' at initialization time may turn out to be more costly than just `make-hash-table'. Could you try that out? > * Symbol generation for naming run-time helper functions (the > reference implementation explicitly exports bindings for helper > functions) Hmm, what are you referring to precisely? Also: * use Guile's `string-hash' in `$hash-keyword' (unless Guile's hash tables are used, that is). Overall, it may indeed be wise to use the reference implementation. However, we'd need a copyright assignment from Marc and/or licensing under LGPLv2+. Thanks, Ludovic.
