[chuck-users] wishlist for the new year

[mike clemow]

What about this:

normal function def -

fun int addOne(int x)
{
    return x+1;
}

I think that what would make a functional paradigm possible is that "fun
<type>" is a type definition.  The goal is something like -

fun void run(fun void f)
{
    f();
}

this is weird, but valid...

fun fun void combine( fun void f, fun void g )
{
    fun void h()
    {
        f();
        g();
    }

    return h;
}

we could do anonymous functions in a way that SClang does, using just curly
braces -

{
    int x, y;
    return x + y;
}

then we can overload the @=> operator to allow (with added keyword "arg" to
define arguments) -

{
    arg int x, y;
    return x + y;
} @=> fun int f;

<<< f(4, 5) >>>;  // prints "9"

and then we can add (i'm just ranting now) default/optional arguments from
Python -

fun int f(int x=5, int y=9)
{
    return x+y;
}

<<< f(1,2) >>>;  // prints "3"
<<< f() >>>;  // prints "14"
<<< f(6) >>>;  // prints "15", I guess...


imaginary syntax is fun (void).

-Mike


2010/1/6 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>

> Atte;
>
> And regarding WM (Window manager) I used to chuck in tty, with X killed,
>> but recently it seems that I cannot get more performance (ok maybe <5% at
>> the most) that way. So now I'm usually sticking to gnome with
>> bells/whistles.
>>
>>
> That's roughly what I found too. The bells&whistles run -mostly- on the GPU
> anyway. I think it will only matter at extremely low buffer settings where
> the occasional usage spike of non-ChucK processes may cause a glitch.
>
> We need the context-sensitive block processing as it's our lack of block
> processing that is the main reason ChucK takes a comparatively large amount
> of cpu. The context-sensitive version (as in; no block processing for parts
> of the UGen graph that have feedback) sounds like a very good idea, I think
> it should be possible, in a way it even seems obvious. The one issue is that
> I don;t think anyone else has ever done that.
>
> That one should be a big leap in performance, after that we may have to
> think about multi-core support. Strongly typed multi-core support sounds
> distinctly non-trivial to me. I think Ge was looking into it but the problem
> is notoriously hard and we are smack in the middle of the kind of area where
> it's especially hard, for what I understand of it.
>
> Yours,
> Kas.
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>


-- 
http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20100106/2975b588/attachment-0001.html>