[ruby-core:99677] [Ruby master Feature#16989] Sets: need ♥️
From:
mame@...
Date:
2020-08-24 04:13:54 UTC
List:
ruby-core #99677
Issue #16989 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
We discussed this issue at the last-month meeting.
https://github.com/ruby/dev-meeting-log/blob/master/DevelopersMeeting20200720Japan.md
> matz: Positive to introduce Set into core. But we need to first introduce a set literal. { x, y, z } is good, but JavaScript uses it as another meanings, so it would bring confusion. I have no idea.
> knu: As a set library maintainer, I'll first communicate, and try to solve the easy issues that can be sorted out in the library side.
@knu ?
----------------------------------------
Feature #16989: Sets: need ♥️
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16989#change-87164
* Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: knu (Akinori MUSHA)
----------------------------------------
I am opening a series of feature requests on `Set`, all of them based on this usecase.
The main usecase I have in mind is my recent experience with `RuboCop`. I noticed a big number of frozen arrays being used only to later call `include?` on them. This is `O(n)` instead of `O(1)`.
Trying to convert them to `Set`s causes major compatibility issues, as well as very frustrating situations and some cases that would make them much less efficient.
Because of these incompatibilities, `RuboCop` is in the process of using a custom class based on `Array` with optimized `include?` and `===`. `RuboCop` runs multiple checks on Ruby code. Those checks are called cops. `RuboCop` performance is (IMO) pretty bad and some cops currently are in `O(n^2)` where n is the size of the code being inspected. Even given these extremely inefficient cops, optimizing the 100+ such arrays (most of which are quite small btw) gave a 5% speed boost.
RuboCop PRs for reference: https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop-ast/pull/29
https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/pull/8133
My experience tells me that there are many other opportunities to use `Set`s that are missed because `Set`s are not builtin, not known enough and have no shorthand notation.
In this issue I'd like to concentrate the discussion on the following request: `Set`s should be core objects, in the same way that `Complex` were not and are now. Some of the upcoming feature requests would be easier (or only possible) to implement were `Set`s builtin.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>