From hb at biostat.ucsf.edu  Thu Jan 22 21:51:45 2015
From: hb at biostat.ucsf.edu (Henrik Bengtsson)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:51:45 -0800
Subject: [Rd] :: and ::: as .Primitives?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1501221330230.10879@itasca.stat.uiowa.edu>
References: <CAGh0NYotjwDf5JYGcTggJWhWUSVsmBAuhbtGzwqsO+nXBpthyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.11.1501221330230.10879@itasca.stat.uiowa.edu>
Message-ID: <CAFDcVCT9AnCaGg_fW96byDGNnCHXzosCN9zK4MdHwc9Mk2ojpQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM,  <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that how to make :: faster is the right question. If
> you are finding foo::bar being called often enough to matter to your
> overall performance then to me the question is: why are you calling
> foo::bar more than once? Making :: a bit faster by making it a
> primitive will remove some overhead, but your are still left with a
> lot of work that shouldn't need to happen more than once.
>
> For default methods there ought to be a way to create those so the
> default method is computed at creation or load time and stored in an
> environment. For other cases if I want to use foo::bar many times, say
> in a loop, I would do
>
> foo_bar <- foo::bar
>
> and use foo_bar, or something along those lines.

While you're on the line: Do you think this is an optimization that
the 'compiler' package and it's cmpfun() byte compiler will be able to
do in the future?

/Henrik

>
> When :: and ::: were introduce they were intended primarily for
> reflection and debugging, so speed was not an issue. ::: is still
> really only reliably usable that way, and making it faster may just
> encourage bad practice. :: is different and there are good arguments
> for using it in code, but I'm not yet seeing good arguments for use in
> ways that would be performance-critical, but I'm happy to be convinced
> otherwise. If there is a need for a faster :: then going to a
> SPECIALSXP is fine; it would also be good to make the byte code
> compiler aware of it, and possibly to work on ways to improve the
> performance further e.g. through cacheing.
>
> Best,
>
> luke
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Peter Haverty wrote:
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When S4 methods are defined on base function (say, "match"), the
>> function becomes a method with the body "base::match(x,y)". A call to
>> such a function often spends more time doing "::" than in the function
>> itself.  I always assumed that "::" was a very low-level thing, but it
>> turns out to be a plain old function defined in base/R/namespace.R.
>> What would you all think about making "::" and ":::" .Primitives?  I
>> have submitted some examples, timings, and a patch to the R bug
>> tracker (https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=16134).
>> I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pete
>>
>> ____________________
>> Peter M. Haverty, Ph.D.
>> Genentech, Inc.
>> phaverty at gene.com
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>
> --
> Luke Tierney
> Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
> University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
> Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
>    Actuarial Science
> 241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:   luke-tierney at uiowa.edu
> Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:  http://www.stat.uiowa.edu
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] :: and ::: as .Primitives?
Henrik Bengtsson