World: r3wp

I know, but everything that's done in the C side will save on speed 
and memory, since the C doesn't have to go through the GC and all 
that.  in tight loops and real-time continual processing, these details 
make a big difference in overall smoothness of the app.

which is why its preferable to do it there anyways... and the fact 
that we only have one function name to remember for the two versions 
is also a big deal for simplicitie's sake.

I just realized that if Carl is using a hash table for some of the 
set functions... does this mean that its subject to the 24 bit hash 
problem we discovered in maps?

Yes, until that's fixed.

See also http://issue.cc/r3/1574

You could add /no-copy refinements to the set functions though. Of 
course this would switch which half of the set functions are misnamed 
:)

/no-copy would be really nice... its been a recurring discussion 
for years by many of us, which proves that its a required feature 
IMHO.

copy or not, there is no more "correct" version, they both are.

No, I mean that modifying functions should have verb names and non-modifying, 
not-for-effect functions shouldn't. So for the current set functions 
UNIQUE, DIFFERENCE and UNION have good names, but EXCLUDE should 
be called EXCLUDING and INTERSECT should be called INTERSECTING; 
this gets reversed for modifying versions :)

But that's just being silly, unless we're adding new functions that 
need names.

yeah.

Doesn't matter. The non-modifying version of APPEND is called JOIN, 
and both of those are verbs.

does JOIN still reduce like it did in R2?

Yup, so it's not a direct correspondance.

I always wondered why it reduced... I find that very annoying... 
many times I'd use it and It ends up mucking up my data, so I just 
almost never use it.

I mostly use REJOIN and AJOIN instead of JOIN, or maybe APPEND COPY.

me to.

I am pretty sure, that:


1) the set operations in Rebol are in fact GC-safe using the standard 
meaning of the sentence

2) it is always necessary to use auxiliary data, if the wish is to 
do the set operation efficiently

3) nobody pretending to need a modifying version really needs an 
inefficient variant, which does not use any auxiliary data

why do you say we "pretend"?

I think that people who need a modifying version really need it, 
but the rest of us need the non-modifying default :)

really need it

 - does that mean they need what I specified - an inefficient variant 
 not using any auxiliary data?

I suppose that is nonsense

Nope, it just means they need the first argument modified to contain 
the result instead of what it originally contained.

no one is saying to use anything less efficient than the copy returning 
version.

The only difference between the DEDUPLICATE code in the ticket and 
a native version is that the auxiliary data could be deleted immediately 
after use instead of at the next GC run.

and the data is managed directly by C, not by the interpreter, which 
is faster for sure.

which also means that some of that can possibly be optimised by the 
compiler... something that cannot happen within rebol.

its also going to use less ram, even if it does use some auxilliary 
data... since that auxilliary data is not wrapped within REBOL interpreter 
wrappers.

or at least, parts of it wont.

Not much less RAM. The "interpreter wrapper" is pretty much constant, 
no matter the size of the data. Remember, the data you are doing 
set operations on is REBOL data already.

yes, but the extra data used to build it as a mezz, including the 
stack frames and stuff is prevented.   


I know I'm being picky here.  but we're doing a detailed analysis.. 
 :-)

but in the end, its the usability which everyone wants, even if its 
only slightly more effective.

The only difference between the DEDUPLICATE code in the ticket and 
a native version is that the auxiliary data could be deleted immediately 
after use instead of at the next GC run.
 - that would be inefficient as well

INSERT, CLEAR and UNIQUE are already native, so the actual time-consuming 
portions are already optimized. The only overhead you would be reducing 
by making DEDUPLICATE native is constant per function call, and freeing 
the memory immediately just takes a little pressure off the GC at 
collection time. You don't get as much benefit as adding /into to 
REDUCE and COMPOSE gave, but it might be worth adding as a /no-copy 
option, or just as useful to add as a library function.

right now the GC is very cumbersome. it waits for it to have 3-5MB 
before working. and it can take a noticeable amount of time to do 
when there is a lot of ram.  I've had it freeze for a second in some 
apps.

everything we can do to prevent memory being scanned by the GC is 
a good thing.

by 3-5MB, I mean that it will usually accumulate ~ 3-5 MB of new 
data before running.

Mark and sweep only scans the referenced data, not the unreferenced 
data, but adding a lot of unreferenced data makes the GC run more 
often.

yep.

right now the GC is very cumbersome. it waits for it to have 3-5MB 
before working. and it can take a noticeable amount of time to do 
when there is a lot of ram.  I've had it freeze for a second in some 
apps.

 - what exactly does the GC have in common with the "Deduplicate issue"?

I demonstrated above, that, in fact, nothing.

But that doesn't  mean that deallocating immediately will be any 
more efficient; likely it won't.

This is all just pretending, if, what is needed, is a kind of incremental/generational/whichever 
other GC variant, then no "Deduplicate" can help with that

We don't need DEDUPLICATE to help with the GC. He was suggesting 
that having it be native would help reduce the pressure on the GC 
when used for other reasons instead of a mezzanine version. I don't 
think it will by much.

He needs DEDUPLICATE for his own code. The GC also needs work, but 
that is another issue :)

if we implement deduplicate as a mezz, we are juggling data which 
invariably tampers the GC.  doing this native, helps to prevent the 
GC from working to hard.


the problem is not how long/fast the allocation/deallocation is... 
its the fact that cramming data for the GC to manage, will make the 
GC trigger longer/more often.

But you would need to deallocate every time the function is called, 
instead of just when the GC is called. This is often slower.

Did you read Carl's note to the subject?

The subject of the set function implementation, or the GC implementation 
and how it compares to direct deallocation? If the latter then no.

I meant the note more to Max, and it was about the set function

Ah, cool :)