Hi,
Is there any way for me to increase the stack size? My stack is huge:
playback.rb:38:in `play_back': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
Cheers,
-John
By the way, I'm sure it's not infinite recursion. It's just the nature of
my algorithm:
class PlaybackBase
def record(&block)
return PlaybackChain.new(self, block)
end
end
class PlaybackNil < PlaybackBase
def initialize(root)
@root = root
end
def play_back(&block)
block.call(@root)
end
end
class PlaybackChain < PlaybackBase
def initialize(tail, block)
@tail = tail
@block = block
end
def play_back(&block)
@block.call(proc { @tail.play_back(&block) })
end
end
And it's better that I use the system stack rather than my own because it
preserves nice behaviours with blocks
$array1 = [1, 2, 3]
$array2 = ['a', 'b', 'c']
$tail = PlaybackNil.new(nil)
$tail = $tail.record do |block|
$array1.each do |value|
$value1 = value
block.call
end
end
$tail = $tail.record do |block|
$array2.each do |value|
$value2 = value
block.call
end
end
$tail.play_back do
puts "#{$value1}, #{$value2}"
end
Above prints
1, a
2, a
3, a
1, b
2, b
3, b
1, c
2, c
3, c
I build long playback chains like this to replay different combinations of
things.
-John
···
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM, John Ky <newhoggy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way for me to increase the stack size? My stack is huge:
playback.rb:38:in `play_back': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
Cheers,
-John
Hi John,
Just a friendly suggestion, but this and your previous query about blocks make me wonder if you shouldn't be using a functional language? Ruby has very convenient functional syntax but doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) do the same sorts of optimizations that more purely functional languages will do.
The other option (as I'm watching PragDave's RubyConf talk on 1.9) is to use Fibers. Watch the bit of his talk on Fibers at http://rubyconf2008.confreaks.com/ruby-19-what-to-expect.html starting about 18 min in.
Cheers,
Josh
···
On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:34 PM, John Ky wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way for me to increase the stack size? My stack is huge:
playback.rb:38:in `play_back': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
Cheers,
-John
John Ky wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way for me to increase the stack size? My stack is huge:
playback.rb:38:in `play_back': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
ulimit -s? [there's also a patch coming soon for 1.8.7 to help with
stack size--stay tuned, I guess--discussed in
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/170608#new\]
Cheers!
-=R
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Hi Josh,
Fibres do sound interesting.
Anyhow, I'm stuck with 1.8 at the moment. I had this idea that I could
spawn another thread with a fresh stack and continue the excution on that.
Sadly, it didn't work. Instead of getting a system stack error at 3467
levels, I'm now getting the same at 61 levels. Do I not get a new stack
with a new thread?
Thanks
-John
···
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
Just a friendly suggestion, but this and your previous query about blocks
make me wonder if you shouldn't be using a functional language? Ruby has
very convenient functional syntax but doesn't (at least not to my knowledge)
do the same sorts of optimizations that more purely functional languages
will do.The other option (as I'm watching PragDave's RubyConf talk on 1.9) is to
use Fibers. Watch the bit of his talk on Fibers at
http://rubyconf2008.confreaks.com/ruby-19-what-to-expect.html starting
about 18 min in.Cheers,
Josh
On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:34 PM, John Ky wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way for me to increase the stack size? My stack is huge:
playback.rb:38:in `play_back': stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
Cheers,
-John
Sadly, it didn't work. Instead of getting a system stack error at 3467
levels, I'm now getting the same at 61 levels. Do I not get a new stack
with a new thread?
Not with 1.8. I might query the ruby core group and see if they have
any insight.
-=R
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Hi Roger,
It looks as if I create my threads earlier when the stack isn't so full
gives me threads that have more stack space. So now, I create a thread pool
at the beginning of my program and use those threads rather than create the
threads at the point where I know I am running out of stack space.
-John
···
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sadly, it didn't work. Instead of getting a system stack error at 3467
> levels, I'm now getting the same at 61 levels. Do I not get a new stack
> with a new thread?Not with 1.8. I might query the ruby core group and see if they have
any insight.
-=R
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.