[Haskell-cafe] Maybe use advice
Lyndon Maydwell
maydwell at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 12:36:01 CEST 2011
I was considering using a matrix optimisation but things are out of
control enough already :)
Converting all Changes constructors to nested regular constructors may
be the easiest approach. It would certainly eliminate the mess of list
manipulations.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:21 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I'm interpreting your code properly, it's not currently catching that
> case anyway.
> The problem is that you've got two sets of modifiers that both should be
> optimized, explicit Modifier constructors in the Image, and a list contained
> in Changes. Since 'Changes' is just a list of Modifiers, and not an Image,
> neither rewrite nor transform will descend on it. You get around this by
> explicitly calling rewrite on the modifiers in 'deBlank', but then the rules
> from 'optimize' aren't applied. You can't really use the biplate functions
> either because they only match on a single element at a time. What you
> really want to do is be able to express each rule exactly once, which isn't
> possible in the current form of your code.
> One solution is to move a lot of the reductions of the form 'Modifier x'
> from 'optimize' into 'deBlank'. Then you would have something like this:
>
>> deBlank :: [Modifier] -> [Modifier]
>> deBlank = db
>>
>> db (Scale 1 1 : l) = db l
>> db (Rotate x : Rotate x' : l) = db (Rotate (x+x') : l)
>> db (Scale x y : Scale x' y' : l) = db (Scale (x*x') (y*y') : l)
>> db (Translate x y : Translate x' y' : l) = db (Translate (x+x') (y+y') :
>> l)
>> db xs = xs
>
> I actually don't think uniplate gets you anything in this particular
> function.
> Now deBlank will produce a list of modifiers which is as reduced as possible
> (at least by the rules you've provided), and you can use it within a
> two-pass optimize:
>> optimize = transform o2 . transform o
>>
>> o (Modifier _ Blank) = Blank
>> o (Modifier (Scale 0 _) _i) = Blank
>> -- similar cases omitted
>>
>> o (Modifier m2 (Modifier m1 i)) = Modifier (m1 `mappend` m2) i
>> o i@(Modifier (Changes _c) _i) = i
>> o (Modifier m i) = Modifier (Changes [m]) i
>> o i = i
>>
>> o2 (Modifier (Changes c) i) = case deBlank c of
>> [] -> i
>> [x] -> Modifier x i
>> xs -> Modifier (Changes c) i
>> o2 i = i
> Transformations like "Scale 0 _" have remained in the Image traversal,
> however all other modifications are combined into a single Changes list,
> which is then reduced by deBlank in the second pass. Note that in the first
> pass, even single modifications are encapsulated in a Changes; this makes
> the logic of the second pass much simpler because then all the reductions of
> multiple modifiers are located in the 'deBlank' function instead of split
> between there and 'o'.
> This presumes there's an appropriate Monoid instance for Modifiers, but if
> it doesn't exist it can be written easily enough.
> On second thought, I think it would be good to break it up even more, and
> keep the reductions of the form
>> o (Modifier _ Blank) = Blank
>> o (Modifier (Scale 0 _) _i) = Blank
> as a third pass, because it's possible some of them could get lost in this
> form. Then the first pass would just combine terms, the second would apply
> 'deBlank' and reduce, then the third would be as above.
> There are two alternatives which may be simpler:
> 1) Expand "Changes c" into explicit modifications and do all your
> reductions on the resulting Image.
> 2) Implement a general matrix transform for Diagrams and rewrite
> everything in terms of that. This would be useful for shear transforms
> anyway, which I believe are currently inexpressible in Diagrams.
> John Lato
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Lyndon Maydwell <maydwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The fixpoint nature of rewrite catches some cases that transform might
>> not if I'm interpreting it correctly.
>>
>> (Changes [Translate 1 1, Scale 1 1, Translate 1 1]) could be rewritten
>> as (Translate 2 2), but I'm not sure that it could be translated as
>> such if it matches against (Changes [Translate _ _, Translate _ _])
>> first.
>>
>> I have the code on github at
>>
>> https://github.com/sordina/Diagrams-AST/blob/master/src/Graphics/Rendering/Diagrams/AST/Optimize.hs
>> if you're interested.
>>
>> At the moment I'm not worrying about speed as I really just wrote this
>> optimisation function as a demo of why an AST interface to Diagrams
>> might be useful.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is it necessary (helpful) to use 'rewrite'? Nearly every time I've
>> > tried
>> > it, in the end 'transform' has been a better choice. Then you wouldn't
>> > need
>> > the 'Just's at all, and it should work fine.
>> > John
>> >
>> >>
>> >> From: Lyndon Maydwell <maydwell at gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> (missed including cafe)
>> >>
>> >> f :: [Modification] -> Maybe [Modification]
>> >> and
>> >> f _ = Just $ f ...
>> >> are incompatible
>> >>
>> >> I managed to get the behaviour I'm after with the use of Either, but
>> >> this really is messy:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- Sets of changes
>> >> o (Modifier (Changes []) i) = Just $ i
>> >> o (Modifier (Changes [c]) i) = Just $ Modifier c i
>> >> o (Modifier (Changes l) i) = g (f (Left l))
>> >> where
>> >> g (Right l) = Just $ Modifier (Changes l) i
>> >> g (Left l) = Nothing
>> >>
>> >> f (Left (Scale x y : Scale x' y' : l)) =
>> >> f $ Right $ Scale (x*x') (y*y') : h (f $ Left l)
>> >> f (Left (Translate x y : Translate x' y' : l)) =
>> >> f $ Right $ Translate (x+x') (y+y') : h (f $ Left l)
>> >> f (Left (Rotate x : Rotate x' : l)) =
>> >> f $ Right $ Rotate (x+x') : h (f $ Left l)
>> >> f x = x
>> >>
>> >> h (Left l) = l
>> >> h (Right l) = l
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Maciej Marcin Piechotka
>> >> <uzytkownik2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 23:38 +0800, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
>> >> >> I'm writing an optimisation routine using Uniplate. Unfortunately, a
>> >> >> sub-function I'm writing is getting caught in an infinite loop
>> >> >> because
>> >> >> it doesn't return Nothing when there are no optimisations left.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd like a way to move the last Just into f, but this makes
>> >> >> recursion
>> >> >> very messy. I was wondering if there was a nice way to use something
>> >> >> like the Monad or Applicative instance to help here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -- Sets of changes
>> >> >> o (Modifier (Changes []) ?i) = Just $ i
>> >> >> o (Modifier (Changes [c]) i) = Just $ Modifier c i
>> >> >> o (Modifier (Changes l) ? i) = Just $ Modifier (Changes (f l)) i
>> >> >> ? where
>> >> >> ? ? f (Scale ? ? x y : Scale ? ? x' y' : l) = f $ Scale ? ? (x*x')
>> >> >> (y*y') : f l
>> >> >> ? ? f (Translate x y : Translate x' y' : l) = f $ Translate (x+x')
>> >> >> (y+y') : f l
>> >> >> ? ? f (Rotate ? ?x ? : Rotate ? ?x' ? ?: l) = f $ Rotate ? ?(x+x') ?
>> >> >> ?
>> >> >> ? ?: f l
>> >> >> ? ? f l = l
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any ideas?
>> >> >
>> >> > Something like:
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> > f (Rotate ? ?x ? : Rotate ? ?x' ? ?: l)
>> >> > ? ?= Just $ f (Rotate (x+x') : fromMaybe l (f l))
>> >> > f l = Nothing -- As far as I understend
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>
>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list