On 12/10/2002 5:46 PM, Smylers wrote:
OK. There was something on MJD's QOTW recently where using the current
Perl 5 Memoize module slowed code down -- that gave me the impression
that caching had the potential.
It does. In fact, all caching has that potential. Specificly, if the
time to look
Adam Turoff wrote:
sub days_in_month(Str $month, Int $year)
{
$month = lc $month;
if $month eq 'feb'
{
my sub feb_days (Int $year) is cached {
my $leap = $year % 4 == 0
&& ($year % 100 != 0 || $year % 400 == 0);
return $leap ? 29 : 28;
}
return
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:46:07PM -, Smylers wrote:
> > The example above is a classic example of premature optimization.
> > There's nothing which ways the cache would be counter-productive for
> > simple calculations since the caching logic is nearly as simple.
>
> OK. There was something
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:36:20PM -, Smylers wrote:
>
> > That way a function could decide to cache some return values but not
> > all of them.
>
> The example above is a classic example of premature optimization.
> There's nothing which ways the cache would be co
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:20:01PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about the same way as one would do it now? Presumably we won't
> > all
> > forget how to program when Perl 6 comes out.
>
> I think you've missed the point. The original poster (
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you're trying to overoptimize something here. I can't see
> > a benefit to caching only sometimes. If there is, then you probably
> > want to implement a more sophisticated ca
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It doesn't matter whether some of the values are cheap lookups
> > while other values are "complex calculations". Once a cached sub
> > is called with a set of parameter values, the re
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:53:28PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> And in those rare cases where you really do need partial caching, the
> simplest solution is to split the partially cached subroutine into a
> fully cached sub and an uncached sub:
>
> sub days_in_month(Str $month, Int $year)
> {
Smylers wrote:
I was wondering whether it'd be better to have this specified per
C rather than per C.
I doubt it. There's no performance gain from partial caching since
you have to check the cache anyway to detect that a particular result
isn't cached.
And in those rare cases where you really
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:36:20PM -, Smylers wrote:
> Last month's discussion on memoization[*0] had the consensus that
> C is the appropriate property name, used like so:
>
> sub square (Num $n) is cached { ... }
>
> I was wondering whether it'd be better to have this specified per
> C ra
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:20:01PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > > Ahh. This is better. How does one implement a more sophisticated
> > > cache management strategy?
> > >
> > >
--- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Ahh. This is better. How does one implement a more sophisticated
> > cache management strategy?
> >
> > That is, what is the mechanism for manipulating the run-time system
> > behavi
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:36:20PM -, Smylers wrote:
> > > Anybody else like this, or are we better off leaving things as they
> > > were?
> >
> > I think you're trying to overo
--- Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:36:20PM -, Smylers wrote:
> > Perhaps there are only some edge cases which require calculation;
> > or the function is liable to be called with many invalid input
> > values, which can quickly be determined yield C and so
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:36:20PM -, Smylers wrote:
> I was wondering whether it'd be better to have this specified per
> C rather than per C. That'd permit something a long the
> lines of:
>
> sub days_in_month(Str $month, Int $year)
> {
>
> }
>
> Perhaps there are only some e
Last month's discussion on memoization[*0] had the consensus that
C is the appropriate property name, used like so:
sub square (Num $n) is cached { ... }
I was wondering whether it'd be better to have this specified per
C rather than per C. That'd permit something a long the
lines of:
sub d
16 matches
Mail list logo
