X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=week9.mdwn;h=65c1084e0512dfe39f6d8a21a0d1608d8f139b06;hp=d66e65d144b12420eb9a232ac4ba55c58d016346;hb=0050c659874a9453ce5b356d53464ac16e01945a;hpb=9bd6cc6fbfe86f4dfba3885cb5e605dd451baa66
diff --git a/week9.mdwn b/week9.mdwn
index d66e65d1..65c1084e 100644
--- a/week9.mdwn
+++ b/week9.mdwn
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ Here's how to implement these. We'll suppose that our assignment function is lis
(* evaluate expr2 using original assignment function and new store *)
in eval expr2 g s''
-Note: Chris uses this kind of machinery on the third page of the Nov 22 handout. Except he doesn't implement `Change`, and he adds an implementation of `Alias` (see below). Some minor differences: on his handout (and following Groenendijk, Stockhof and Veltman), he uses `r` and `g` where we use `g` and `s` respectively. Also, he implements his `r` with a function from `char` to `int`, instead of a `(char * int) list`, as we do here. It should be obvious how to translate between these. Finally, and this is somewhat more substantial: he implements `Let(c, expr1, expr2)` not by allocating a new peg for `c` as we do above, but rather by changing the value stored at the peg that his `r` already associates with `c`. Without aliases, it doesn't matter which way you go. With aliases, his method is the way to go, because then all other variables aliased to the same peg will automatically inherit the new value. However, his solution requires that variables always already have an associated peg. So that when we call `Let(c, expr1, expr2)` for the first time with `c`, there's a peg whose value is to be updated. That's easier to ensure when you implement the assignment as a function than as a `(char * int) list`.
+Note: Chris uses this kind of machinery on the third page of the Nov 22 handout. Except he implements `Let` the way we here implement `Change`. And he adds an implementation of `Alias` (see below). Some minor differences: on his handout (and following Groenendijk, Stockhof and Veltman), he uses `r` and `g` where we use `g` and `s` respectively. Also, he implements his `r` with a function from `char` to `int`, instead of a `(char * int) list`, as we do here. It should be obvious how to translate between these. His implementation requires that variables always already have an associated peg. So that when we call `Let(c, expr1, expr2)` for the first time with `c`, there's a peg whose value is to be updated. That's easier to ensure when you implement the assignment as a function than as a `(char * int) list`.
##How to implement mutation with a State monad##
@@ -625,7 +625,22 @@ Programming languages tend to provide a bunch of mutation-related capabilities a
Terminological note: in OCaml, `=` and `<>` express the qualitative (in)discernibility relations, also expressed in Scheme with `equal?`. In OCaml, `==` and `!=` express the numerical (non)identity relations, also expressed in Scheme with `eq?`. `=` also has other syntactic roles in OCaml, such as in the form `let x = value in ...`. In other languages, like C and Python, `=` is commonly used just for assignment (of either of the sorts we've now seen: `let x = value in ...` or `change x to value in ...`). The symbols `==` and `!=` are commonly used to express qualitative (in)discernibility in these languages. Python expresses numerical (non)identity with `is` and `is not`. What an unattractive mess. Don't get me started on Haskell (qualitative discernibility is `/=`) and Lua (physical (non)identity is `==` and `~=`).
- Note that neither of the equality predicates here being considered are the same as the "hyperequals" predicate mentioned above. For example, in the following (fictional) language:
+ Because of the particular way the numerical identity predicates are implemented in all of these languages, it doesn't quite match our conceptual expectations. For instance, For instance, if `ycell` is a reference cell, then `ref !ycell` will always be a numerically distinct reference cell containing the same value. We get this pattern of comparisons in OCaml:
+
+ ycell == ycell
+ ycell != ref !ycell (* true, these aren't numerically identical *)
+
+ ycell = ycell
+ ycell = ref !ycell (* true, they are qualitatively indiscernible *)
+
+ But now what about?
+
+ (0, 1, ycell) ? (0, 1, ycell)
+ (0, 1. ycell) ? (0, 1. ref !ycell)
+
+ You might expect the first pair to be numerically identical too---after all, they involve the same structure (an immutable triple) each of whose components is numerically identical. But OCaml's "physical identity" predicate `==` does not detect that identity. It counts both of these comparisons as false. OCaml's `=` predicate does count the first pair as equal, but only because it's insensitive to numerical identity; it also counts the second pair as equal. This shows up in all the other languages I know, as well. In Python, `y = []; (0, 1, y) is (0, 1, y)` evaluates to false. In Racket, `(define y (box 1)) (eq? (cons 0 y) (cons 0 y))` also evaluates to false (and in Racket, unlike traditional Schemes, `cons` is creating immutable pairs). They chose an implementation for their numerical identity predicates that is especially efficient and does the right thing in the common cases, but doesn't quite match our mathematical expectations.
+
+ Additionally, note that none of the equality predicates so far considered is the same as the "hyperequals" predicate mentioned above. For example, in the following (fictional) language:
let ycell = ref 1
in let xcell = ref 1