ASM Bytecode Generation to unwrap Expressions of adv-expr API #94
@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ interface AsmExpression<T> {
|
||||
|
|
||||
fun invoke(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
internal val methodNameAdapters = mapOf("+" to "add", "*" to "multiply", "/" to "divide")
|
||||
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
private val methodNameAdapters: Map<String, String> = mapOf("+" to "add", "*" to "multiply", "/" to "divide")
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
|
||||
internal fun <T> hasSpecific(context: Algebra<T>, name: String, arity: Int): Boolean {
|
||||
val aName = methodNameAdapters[name] ?: name
|
||||
@ -137,7 +137,9 @@ internal class AsmConstProductExpression<T>(
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
gen.visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||
owner = AsmGenerationContext.SPACE_OPERATIONS_CLASS,
|
||||
method = "multiply",
|
||||
descriptor = "(L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};L${AsmGenerationContext.NUMBER_CLASS};)L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};"
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
descriptor = "(L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};" +
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
"L${AsmGenerationContext.NUMBER_CLASS};)" +
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
"L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};"
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
||||
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ package scientifik.kmath.expressions
|
||||
|
||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.*
|
||||
|
||||
internal class FunctionalUnaryOperation<T>(val context: Algebra<T>, val name: String, val expr: Expression<T>) :
|
||||
internal class FunctionalUnaryOperation<T>(val context: Algebra<T>, val name: String, private val expr: Expression<T>) :
|
||||
Expression<T> {
|
||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = context.unaryOperation(name, expr.invoke(arguments))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Add documentation since the interface is public.
Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without
operator? It seems that it should be renamed tocompile. Those method need to be documented as well.does it make sense to do invoke without
operator? It seems that it should be renamed tocompile. Those method need to be documented as well.OK
OK
OK
OK
It seems like
compileis a better name.It seems like
compileis a better name.