julian-seward1 opened Issue #1583:
The names
PrimaryMap
andSecondaryMap
are misleading and un-descriptive. For the benefit of readers and maintainers of Cranelift, and especially newcomers, I propose we give them better names.
The
Map
component is misleading. Neither type possesses what I think of as the primary characteristic of a map (in the sense of RustHashMap
, libstdc++map
, etc), which is O(1 + epsilon) access time for sparse keys. The new names shouldn't include the textMap
.These types are in fact vectors, and you need to know that to use them reasonably (meaning, they only work well for dense zero-based key ranges) but there's nothing in the name to suggest that.
Primary
andSecondary
suggest some relationship between individual maps which simply doesn't exist. This confused me for some time when I first came to the code base. I thought: how do I find all theSecondaryMaps
associated with aPrimaryMap
? Are they connected via some Rust type system magic? Or is it done at run time; if so is there some registry I should consult? This is of course totally irrelevant; there is no such connection.I suggest to rename
PrimaryMap
toFixedSizeVec
andSecondaryMap
toAutoResizeVec
:
it doesn't claim they are maps, which they aren't
it does claim they are vectors, which they are
it doesn't claim any relationship between them, which there isn't
it correctly summarises the essential difference between them: one is fixed size, the other resizes (upwards) on demand.
I believe that accurate naming is important, and this would be a small but important step in making Cranelift easier to understand. If there is general support I will happily prepare a patch.
julian-seward1 edited Issue #1583:
The names
PrimaryMap
andSecondaryMap
are misleading and un-descriptive. For the benefit of readers and maintainers of Cranelift, and especially newcomers, I propose we give them better names.
The
Map
component is misleading. Neither type possesses what I think of as the primary characteristic of a map (in the sense of RustHashMap
, libstdc++map
, etc), which is O(1 + epsilon) access time for sparse keys. The new names shouldn't include the textMap
.These types are in fact vectors, and you need to know that to use them reasonably (meaning, they only work well for dense zero-based key ranges) but there's nothing in the name to suggest that.
Primary
andSecondary
suggest some relationship between individual maps which simply doesn't exist. This confused me for some time when I first came to the code base. I thought: how do I find all theSecondaryMaps
associated with aPrimaryMap
? Are they connected via some Rust type system magic? Or is it done at run time; if so is there some registry I should consult? This is of course totally irrelevant; there is no such connection.I suggest to rename
PrimaryMap
toFixedSizeVec
andSecondaryMap
toAutoResizeVec
:
it doesn't claim they are maps, which they aren't
it does claim they are vectors, which they are
it doesn't claim any relationship between them, which there isn't
it correctly summarises the essential difference between them: one is fixed size, the other resizes (upwards) on demand.
I believe that accurate naming is important, and this would be a small but important step in making Cranelift easier to understand. If there is general support I will happily prepare a patch.
julian-seward1 commented on Issue #1583:
The change could be done incrementally, so as to avoid massive merge conflicts. First create the new names as (
type
) aliases of the old ones. Then we can incrementally move smaller sections of the code base to the new names, and remove the old ones when all sections have been changed.
bjorn3 commented on Issue #1583:
it doesn't claim they are maps, which they aren't
It maps from a key (the index) to a value.
Primary and Secondary suggest some relationship between individual maps which simply doesn't exist.
To me a relationship does exists: A
PrimaryMap
contains entity definitions, while aSecundaryMap
contains metadata about (some of) those definitions.I thought: how do I find all the SecondaryMaps associated with a PrimaryMap?
Look at all
SecundaryMap
s with the same index type as thePrimaryMap
.
froydnj commented on Issue #1583:
To me a relationship does exists: A
PrimaryMap
contains entity definitions, while aSecundaryMap
contains metadata about (some of) those definitions.I also found this naming convention confusing when trying to figure out the codebase. Maybe
EntityMap
andAttributeMap
(or something like it) would be more evocative names, then?
julian-seward1 commented on Issue #1583:
I thought: how do I find all the SecondaryMaps associated with a PrimaryMap?
Look at allSecundaryMap
s with the same index type as thePrimaryMap
.But that's mere programming convention, right? There's no particular reason why a
PrimaryMap<K, U>
should have any particular relationship with some otherSecondaryMap<K, V>
. It might, but it might not. If there is to be a relationship, that should be shown through the variable names, not the type names.
julian-seward1 edited a comment on Issue #1583:
I thought: how do I find all the SecondaryMaps associated with a PrimaryMap?
Look at allSecundaryMap
s with the same index type as thePrimaryMap
.But that's mere programming convention, right? There's no particular reason why a
PrimaryMap<K, U>
should have a relationship with some otherSecondaryMap<K, V>
. It might, but it might not. If there is to be a relationship, that should be shown through the variable names, not the type names.
julian-seward1 edited a comment on Issue #1583:
I thought: how do I find all the SecondaryMaps associated with a PrimaryMap?
Look at allSecundaryMap
s with the same index type as thePrimaryMap
.But that's really something that just happens to mostly be true inside small sections of code, maybe a function or a group of functions, right? There's no particular reason why a
PrimaryMap<K, U>
should in general be interpreted as having a relationship with some otherSecondaryMap<K, V>
. It might, but it might not. If there is to be a relationship, that should be shown through the variable names, not the type names.
sunfishcode commented on Issue #1583:
The way we use
PrimaryMap
, we give it a distinct key type which identifies a conceptual index space. It isn't an arbitrary type that unrelated code might happen to use; it's a "newtype" created for a particular purpose which ensures that you don't accidentally use an index meant for one index space in another.For example, anywhere in Cranelift you see a
Value
, it's related toFunction
'svalues
PrimaryMap
. We don't always make this explicit in variable names, because it's clear from the type. Similarly, anywhere you see aSecondaryMap<Value, Foo>
, it's associating aFoo
with each value in a function. The auto-resize behavior is almost an implementation detail which we don't currently have a way to fully hide -- we don't wantPrimaryMap
s to have to maintain lists of associatedSecondaryMap
s to update when they resize.
EntityMap
andAttributeMap
would also make sense to me.
bnjbvr commented on Issue #1583:
I like
EntityMap
andAttributeMap
too. I think the original naming may come from the entity-component-system world, where "secondary" data structures hold external information about entities, as Dan describes.(And a Vector is effectively one way to implement a Map of integer indexes to something, so the Map component in the name seems to make sense here.)
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC