www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Extend vector ops to boolean operators?

reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
It'd be really cool if I could do this:

	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
		assert(vector[] >= 0 && vector[] < bounds[]);
		...
	}

Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


T

-- 
He who laughs last thinks slowest.
Mar 06 2012
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 03/06/2012 09:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 		assert(vector[]>= 0&&  vector[]<  bounds[]);
 		...
 	}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Comparing arrays already does lexical-style comparison (which makes sense).
Mar 06 2012
next sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 03/06/2012 09:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:35:11PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 03/06/2012 09:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 		assert(vector[]>= 0&&   vector[]<   bounds[]);
 		...
 	}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 Comparing arrays already does lexical-style comparison (which makes sense).

What I wanted is not lexicographic comparison, but per-element comparison: v[]>=0 means v[0]>0&& v[1]>0&& v[2]>0&& ... v[]<b[] means v[0]<b[0]&& v[1]<b[1]&& v[2]<b[2]&& ... as opposed to lexicographical: v< b means (v[0]!=b[0]) ? v[0]<b[0] : (v[1]!=b[1]) ? v[1]<b[1] : (v[2]!=b[2]) ? v[2]<b[2] : ... T

I know. You asked for reasons why it shouldn't be implemented. The main reason is that it is already valid code with different semantics.
Mar 07 2012
prev sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 03/06/2012 10:10 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
 On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:35:11 +0100, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote:

 On 03/06/2012 09:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 assert(vector[]>= 0&& vector[]< bounds[]);
 ...
 }

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Comparing arrays already does lexical-style comparison (which makes sense).

Comparing two arrays makes sense, absolutely. Comparing one T[] and one T currently does not. Also, foo[] already changes the behavior of operators on foo,

No, it does not change their behavior, it is just required to allow them. Array slices have value semantics, and foo[] is currently shorthand for foo[0..$].
 making it do a per-element compare would be in line
 with this pattern.

Making array slicing change the behavior of some operator wouldn't have any precedent.
 This is also already in bugzilla:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5636

Mar 07 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Cavanaugh <WorksOnMyMachine gmail.com> writes:
On 3/6/2012 2:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 		assert(vector[]>= 0&&  vector[]<  bounds[]);
 		...
 	}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

This same problem exists for making proper syntactical sugar for simd comparison functions. != == (opEquals is required to return a bool) and <= >= < > (opCmp is required to return an int) Granted its possible to live without the sugar but the code looks more like asm, and reading the code takes longer without the operators in it.
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent =?utf-8?Q?Simen_Kj=C3=A6r=C3=A5s?= <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:35:11 +0100, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote:

 On 03/06/2012 09:30 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 		assert(vector[]>= 0&&  vector[]<  bounds[]);
 		...
 	}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Comparing arrays already does lexical-style comparison (which makes sense).

Comparing two arrays makes sense, absolutely. Comparing one T[] and one T currently does not. Also, foo[] already changes the behavior of operators on foo, making it do a per-element compare would be in line with this pattern. This is also already in bugzilla: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5636
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 20:28:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 	void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 		assert(vector[] >= 0 && vector[] < bounds[]);
 		...
 	}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Would this be possible with UFCS? int opCmp(T)T([] array, T element) { ... } int opCmp(T)(T[] array1, T[] array2) { ... }
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
On 7 March 2012 10:58, Kapps <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 20:28:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0assert(vector[] >=


 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0...
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Would this be possible with UFCS? int opCmp(T)T([] array, T element) { ... } int opCmp(T)(T[] array1, T[] array2) { ... }

I like this idea, at least adding an opSliceCmp operator-overload would do as a start, I think thats the correct name for it. I can't be bothered to check. -- James Miller
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 23:57:07 UTC, James Miller wrote:
 On 7 March 2012 10:58, Kapps <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 20:28:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

        void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
                assert(vector[] >= 0 && vector[] < 
 bounds[]);

                ...
        }

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Would this be possible with UFCS? int opCmp(T)T([] array, T element) { ... } int opCmp(T)(T[] array1, T[] array2) { ... }

I like this idea, at least adding an opSliceCmp operator-overload would do as a start, I think thats the correct name for it. I can't be bothered to check. -- James Miller

It has to be done as vector operations. a[] < b[] should equal [a[0] < b[0], a[1] < b[1], ... ] What the OP has asked for is not a vector operation, so it shouldn't use the vector op syntax.
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
On 7 March 2012 15:35, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> wrote=
:
 On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 23:57:07 UTC, James Miller wrote:
 On 7 March 2012 10:58, Kapps <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 20:28:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It'd be really cool if I could do this:

 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0void func(int[] vector, int[] bounds) {
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0assert(vector[]=



 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0...
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}

 Is there any reason why we shouldn't implement this?


 T

Would this be possible with UFCS? int opCmp(T)T([] array, T element) { ... } int opCmp(T)(T[] array1, T[] array2) { ... }

I like this idea, at least adding an opSliceCmp operator-overload would do as a start, I think thats the correct name for it. I can't be bothered to check. -- James Miller

It has to be done as vector operations. a[] < b[] should equal [a[0] < b[0], a[1] < b[1], ... ] What the OP has asked for is not a vector operation, so it shouldn't use =

 vector op syntax.

What? I'm assuming you mean that you expect an array of `bool`s? While I agree that most vector operations should return a vector, comparison makes more sense as returning a straight bool, most of the time you aren't going to want to just have an array of bools. The only use case i can think of is this: auto c =3D a[] < b[] foreach (i : c) { if (i) doSomething(); else doSomethingElse(); } Which can be easily re-written as for (int i; i < a.length; i++) { if (a[i] < b[i]) doSomething(); else doSomethingElse(); } (ignoring things like proper checking etc.) Of course most vector ops should return vectors, but most other ops return proper types too, comparison ops tend to be the exception to the rule. -- James Miller
Mar 06 2012
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
James Miller:

 What? I'm assuming you mean that you expect an array of `bool`s?

Right. Vector operations like a[]<b[] are meant to return an array of bools. To see how this is useful you probably must think in terms of vector-style programming. In NumPy the use of arrays of booleans is common:
 from numpy import *
 a = array([3,6,8,9])
 a == 6



 a >= 7



 a < 5



 # count all the even numbers
 sum( (a%2) == 0 )



 b = array([2,6,7,10])
 a == b



 a < b



They are sometimes used as masks, it's useful if you have a Vector type that supports multi-index syntax: i = scipy.array([0,1,2,1]) # array of indices for the first axis j = scipy.array([1,2,3,4]) # array of indices for the second axis a[i,j] # return array([a[0,1], a[1,2], a[2,3], a[1,4]]) b = scipy.array([True, False, True, False]) a[b] # return array([a[0], a[2]]) since only b[0] and b[2] are True Using the new CPU AVX registers you are able to perform a loop and work on the items of an array in parallel until all the booleans of an array are false. See this, expecially Listing 5: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/introduction-to-intel-advanced-vector-extensions/ http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2011/spring/cs641/lecture/04_12_AVX.html Vector comparisons have a natural hardware implementataion with AVX/AVX2 instructions like _mm256_cmp_ps. Bye, bearophile
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling parent James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
On 7 March 2012 17:03, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:
 James Miller:

 What? I'm assuming you mean that you expect an array of `bool`s?

Right. Vector operations like a[]<b[] are meant to return an array of boo=

yle programming. In NumPy the use of arrays of booleans is common:
 from numpy import *
 a =3D array([3,6,8,9])
 a =3D=3D 6



 a >=3D 7



 a < 5



 # count all the even numbers
 sum( (a%2) =3D=3D 0 )



 b =3D array([2,6,7,10])
 a =3D=3D b



 a < b



They are sometimes used as masks, it's useful if you have a Vector type t=

 i =3D scipy.array([0,1,2,1]) # array of indices for the first axis
 j =3D scipy.array([1,2,3,4]) # array of indices for the second axis
 a[i,j] # return array([a[0,1], a[1,2], a[2,3], a[1,4]])
 b =3D scipy.array([True, False, True, False])
 a[b] # return array([a[0], a[2]]) since only b[0] and b[2] are True


 Using the new CPU AVX registers you are able to perform a loop and work o=

false. See this, expecially Listing 5:
 http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/introduction-to-intel-advanced-v=

 http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2011/spring/cs641/lecture/04_12_AVX.html

 Vector comparisons have a natural hardware implementataion with AVX/AVX2 =

 Bye,
 bearophile

Hmm, I see your point, I think that with D's current operator overloading you could implement most of that. Other than the comparison syntax. If vector comparison gets added, then there should be some very clear documentation that it returns a vector, because I can imagine using it in an if statement and then wondering why it always went through...
Mar 06 2012