There were two kinds of solutions to this problem. The first were Array-based
solutions. The logic here is that we can do the iteration, shove all the
results in an Array, and then hand them out one-at-a-time. Here is Christoffer
Lerno's solution, doing exactly that:
class MyGenerator
attr_reader :index
def initialize(enum = nil)
if enum then
@array = enum.to_a
else
@array = Array.new
yield self
end
@index = 0
end
def current
raise EOFError unless next?
@array[@index]
end
def next
value = current
@index += 1
return value
end
def next?
return @index < @array.length
end
def rewind
@index = 0
self
end
def each(&block)
@array.each(&block)
end
def yield(value)
@array << value
end
def pos
return @index
end
def end?
return !next?
end
end
Even though Generator supposedly works off of the each() method, it claims to
accept an Enumerable argument. If we go on that assumption, there should be a
to_a() method which will return all the objects each() iteration would. (If you
are uncomfortable with this logic, you could iterate and add them to an Array by
hand.) You can see Christoffer putting this shortcut to work in initialize(),
filling @array with a simple call to to_a().
The rest of the methods are trivial. An @index is saved pointing into the
@array, which can be incremented or reset to walk the objects.
The good news: this is wicked fast in comparison to the old or even the new
Generator library. The bad news: it doesn't work for all cases. First, an
iterator does not have to be finite, and trying to shove something like a lazily
evaluated infinite stream in an Array is going to go poorly. Furthermore,
iteration may be sensitive to external factors like when it is executed. In
those cases, running the full iteration up front may produce different results.
For these reasons the standard Generator library requires a more general
solution. However, I would still tuck the Array-and-index trick away in the
back of your mind, as it may just come in handy some day. If you can be sure
you aren't dealing with any of the edge cases mentioned above and sure you can
spare the memory, using an Array and an index is simple and fast.
For all other times, you have the standard Generator library.
We know that the library use to work with continuations, but now it has a new
implementation. The new technique was the other one used by the solutions. It
goes like this: launch a Thread to iterate over the elements, stop the Thread
just before each iteration, and wake it up each time you need a new item.
Let's see how Jacob Fugal implemented that (with a small patch from Ross
Bamford). Here's the setup:
require 'thread'
class FasterGenerator
def initialize( enum=nil, &block )
@position = 0
@values = []
@done = false
@mutex = Mutex.new
@block = block
if enum
@block = proc{ |g|
enum.each{ |x| g.yield x }
}
end
end
# ...
This almost looks like the Array-and-index trick again, when you see @position
and @values, but this version isn't going to slurp the values all at once.
@done is just a flag to tell us when we have exhausted the values and @mutex is
a locking tool from the thread library.
Now @block is a little more interesting. Generator can be called in two ways,
either with an Enumerable object, or with a block that yield()s values to the
Generator. The code above merges the two cases, by providing a block that
yield()s through each() when the Enumerable object is given.
That means the next piece of the puzzle is the yield() method:
# ...
def yield( x )
@mutex.synchronize{ @values << x }
Thread.stop
end
# ...
We're starting to see threading work here. This method grabs the lock, adds the
object to @values, drops the lock, and halts the Thread that fetched the object.
The lock is to ensure that multiple Threads don't stomp on the internal @values
queue at the same time and the halting is the pause before each iteration I
mentioned earlier.
So, let's see see what current() and next() look like:
# ...
def current
collect_value
raise EOFError if eof?
@values[@position]
end
# ...
def next
x = current
@position += 1
x
end
# ...
Seems like all the magic here is hidden in the collect_value() method and
everything else is just indexing. Here's the magic method:
# ...
private
def collect_value
@thread ||= Thread.new {
Thread.stop
@block[self]
@mutex.synchronize{ @done = true }
}
Thread.pass until @thread.stop?
@thread.run if @thread.status and need_value?
Thread.pass while need_value?
end
def need_value?
@mutex.synchronize{ not @position < @values.size and not @done }
end
# ...
collect_value() makes sure we have a Thread running, or creates it if needed.
The Thread is trivial: halt (to pause before the first iteration), run the
block, grab the lock, toggle the @done flag, and release the lock. Once we are
sure there is a Thread, we can pass() the calling Thread until the generator
Thread gets a chance to run() and reaches its stop()ing point.
need_value?() is just a check to make sure we don't have one queued, and we're
not finished with iteration.
The only challenge left is knowing when we are at the end?() of iteration:
# ...
def next?
return (not end?)
end
def end?
collect_value
return eof?
end
# ...
private
# ...
def eof?
@mutex.synchronize{ not @position < @values.size and @done }
end
end
The secret to end?() is that we must make sure we have a value queued, if
possible. That's because we pause just after each item is added. We might be
in the very last pause before iteration would end. Calling collect_value() will
find the next item or cause the @done flag to be set. Either way, we then have
enough information to properly answer the question.
Here are the rest of the methods for Jacob's solution:
# ...
def pos
@position
end
# ...
def rewind
@position = 0
self
end
def each
self.rewind
while self.next?
yield self.next
end
end
def index
pos
end
# ...
There shouldn't be any surprises left in there.
Some other solutions that used this same technique were faster, or even slower.
This seems primarily related to which tools were used to control Thread
synchronization. Mutex, for example, is fairly slow while `Thread.critical =
true` is quick and probably all you need in this instance.
Let me send out a big thank you to all who tried this quiz and an even bigger
thank you to Ross Bamford for helping me out with the timings.
Tomorrow we have a deep meditation on metaprogramming...