[erlang-questions] Did Erlang's grammar change in R16A?
Fri Feb 15 01:02:31 CET 2013
2013/2/15 Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED>
> Hi Björn,
> While a local atom may take more space than a heap binary, the
> amortized cost of comparing a local atom to another local atom
> with a different name is O(1) because their hash aren't the
Ok, how does this perform against linear scan Eterm data array? The
tradeoff being one word memory saved on the heap also? Keep in mind that
most atoms are pretty short.
> Furthermore, two different local atoms with the same name will
> become the very same term on the heap when gc happens after
> a comparison between the two of them.
You are forcing me to look at the EEP again.
.. first thought you were messing with the arity thing meaning .. perhaps i
should sleep. putting more stuff in the header .. seems good
.. wait a minute .. are you proposing an immediate with a payload? so it's
really a thing instead? and if it is a thing should you really be messing
with the header meaning?
Seems like it's a one pass gc strategy in unifying the atoms .. ok. I need
to take a look at the proposal when all my neurons are firing ok. I can't
possibly be reading that EEP correctly.
These two things won't ever happen with heap binaries.
> On an unrelated subject, I hope some at least some of the OTP
> team do look hard at EEPs.
Sure but my sleepy brain does not remember it all =)
I gather your worried that your implementing something that will not be
accepted. I can't answer that. I can say that a reference implementation
for an EEP goes a long way though.
I think there are many ways to skin this particular cat and I think it
should debated what the most effective atom gc could be.
> Anthony Ramine
> Le 14 févr. 2013 à 23:42, Björn-Egil Dahlberg a écrit :
> > (I might be wrong about the size though .. didn't look that hard).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions