From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA12884 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:21:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA22415 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:39:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10647;
	Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:39:19 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from fpottier@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA19767; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:39:18 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <19991029113918.23521@pauillac.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:39:18 +0200
From: Francois Pottier <Francois.Pottier@inria.fr>
To: Christopher Jeris <cjeris@math.mit.edu>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [caml] Closures and efficiency
References: <Pine.SUN.4.20.9910261748340.6977-100000@schauder.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.20.9910261748340.6977-100000@schauder.mit.edu>; from Christopher Jeris on Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 06:06:28PM -0400
Sender: weis


Hello,

> Here's the nub of my question.  In a typical synth architecture there are
> very many parameters which take values 0..127.  If I had a function
> 
>   int_subrange_encoder: int -> int -> param_value -> bytestring
> 
> which took the bounds of a subrange and generated an encoder function for
> values of that subrange, and then in a voice-architecture description I
> had a list of very many records each of which contained an entry
> 
>   int_subrange_encoder 0 127
> 
> would I suddenly have six million little closures, or would the compiler
> do common-subexpression elimination on them ?

I don't know if the compiler performs CSE for expressions which involve
function applications (it would have to prove that the function
int_subrange_encoder does not perform side effects, which I think
it doesn't -- but I could be wrong).

However, if you're worried by memory consumption, you can easily create
a memoizing version of int_subrange_encoder. Here is a generic "memoize"
function which accepts any 1-parameter function f and returns a
memoizing version of it. (You can adapt it for 2 arguments if you wish,
or uncurry the function int_subrange_encoder, as I have done below.)

  let memoize f =
    let table = Hashtbl.create 1023 in
    fun argument ->
      try
	Hashtbl.find table argument
      with Not_found ->
	let result = f argument in
	Hashtbl.add table argument result;
	result

Of course, memoizing a function f only makes sense if it is applicative,
i.e. it returns the same result when applied twice, and it performs no
observable side effects. You can write:

  let int_subrange_encoder (x, y) =
    ...

  let memoized_int_subrange_encoder =
    memoize int_subrange_encoder

Hope this helps,

-- 
François Pottier
Francois.Pottier@inria.fr
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/