ASM Bytecode Generation to unwrap Expressions of adv-expr API #94
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ plugins {
|
|||||||
id("scientifik.mpp")
|
id("scientifik.mpp")
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
repositories{
|
repositories {
|
||||||
maven("https://dl.bintray.com/hotkeytlt/maven")
|
maven("https://dl.bintray.com/hotkeytlt/maven")
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -14,13 +14,18 @@ kotlin.sourceSets {
|
|||||||
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-multiplatform-metadata:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-multiplatform-metadata:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
jvmMain{
|
|
||||||
dependencies{
|
jvmMain {
|
||||||
|
dependencies {
|
||||||
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-jvm:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-jvm:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
||||||
|
implementation("org.ow2.asm:asm:8.0.1")
|
||||||
|
implementation("org.ow2.asm:asm-commons:8.0.1")
|
||||||
|
implementation(kotlin("reflect"))
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
jsMain{
|
|
||||||
dependencies{
|
jsMain {
|
||||||
|
dependencies {
|
||||||
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-js:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
implementation("com.github.h0tk3y.betterParse:better-parse-js:0.4.0-alpha-3")
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.asm
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.AsmGenerationContext
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.ast.MST
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.ast.evaluate
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.Expression
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
|
internal fun buildName(expression: AsmNode<*>, collision: Int = 0): String {
|
||||||
|
val name = "scientifik.kmath.expressions.generated.AsmCompiledExpression_${expression.hashCode()}_$collision"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
try {
|
||||||
|
Class.forName(name)
|
||||||
|
} catch (ignored: ClassNotFoundException) {
|
||||||
|
return name
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return buildName(expression, collision + 1)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
|
internal inline fun <reified T> AsmNode<T>.compile(algebra: Algebra<T>): Expression<T> {
|
||||||
|
val ctx =
|
||||||
|
AsmGenerationContext(T::class.java, algebra, buildName(this))
|
||||||
|
compile(ctx)
|
||||||
|
return ctx.generate()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A : NumericAlgebra<T>, E : AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A>> A.asm(
|
||||||
|
expressionAlgebra: E,
|
||||||
|
block: E.() -> AsmNode<T>
|
||||||
|
): Expression<T> = expressionAlgebra.block().compile(expressionAlgebra.algebra)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A : NumericAlgebra<T>, E : AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A>> A.asm(
|
||||||
|
expressionAlgebra: E,
|
||||||
|
ast: MST
|
||||||
|
): Expression<T> = asm(expressionAlgebra) { evaluate(ast) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmSpace(block: AsmExpressionSpace<T, A>.() -> AsmNode<T>): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Space<T> =
|
||||||
|
AsmExpressionSpace(this).let { it.block().compile(it.algebra) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmSpace(ast: MST): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Space<T> =
|
||||||
|
asmSpace { evaluate(ast) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmRing(block: AsmExpressionRing<T, A>.() -> AsmNode<T>): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Ring<T> =
|
||||||
|
AsmExpressionRing(this).let { it.block().compile(it.algebra) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmRing(ast: MST): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Ring<T> =
|
||||||
|
asmRing { evaluate(ast) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmField(block: AsmExpressionField<T, A>.() -> AsmNode<T>): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Field<T> =
|
||||||
|
AsmExpressionField(this).let { it.block().compile(it.algebra) }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
inline fun <reified T, A> A.asmField(ast: MST): Expression<T> where A : NumericAlgebra<T>, A : Field<T> =
|
||||||
|
asmRing { evaluate(ast) }
|
@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.asm
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.AsmGenerationContext
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.hasSpecific
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.optimize
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.tryInvokeSpecific
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.Expression
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.ExpressionAlgebra
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.*
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* A function declaration that could be compiled to [AsmGenerationContext].
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* @param T the type the stored function returns.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
abstract class AsmNode<T> internal constructor() {
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Tries to evaluate this function without its variables. This method is intended for optimization.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* @return `null` if the function depends on its variables, the value if the function is a constant.
|
||||||
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.
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 open fun tryEvaluate(): T? = null
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Compiles this declaration.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* @param gen the target [AsmGenerationContext].
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
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 abstract fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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 class AsmUnaryOperation<T>(private val context: Algebra<T>, private val name: String, expr: AsmNode<T>) :
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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 expr: AsmNode<T> = expr.optimize()
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun tryEvaluate(): T? = context { unaryOperation(name, expr.tryEvaluate() ?: return@context null) }
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>) {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitLoadAlgebra()
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
if (!hasSpecific(context, name, 1))
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitStringConstant(name)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
expr.compile(gen)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
if (gen.tryInvokeSpecific(context, name, 1))
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
return
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
owner = AsmGenerationContext.ALGEBRA_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.
|
|||||||
|
method = "unaryOperation",
|
||||||
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${AsmGenerationContext.STRING_CLASS};" +
|
||||||
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
|||||||
|
"L${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.
|
|||||||
|
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 class AsmBinaryOperation<T>(
|
||||||
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 context: Algebra<T>,
|
||||||
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 name: String,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
first: AsmNode<T>,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
second: AsmNode<T>
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
) : AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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 first: AsmNode<T> = first.optimize()
|
||||||
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 second: AsmNode<T> = second.optimize()
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun tryEvaluate(): T? = context {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
binaryOperation(
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
name,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
first.tryEvaluate() ?: return@context null,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
second.tryEvaluate() ?: return@context null
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>) {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitLoadAlgebra()
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
if (!hasSpecific(context, name, 2))
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitStringConstant(name)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
first.compile(gen)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
second.compile(gen)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
if (gen.tryInvokeSpecific(context, name, 2))
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
return
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
owner = AsmGenerationContext.ALGEBRA_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.
|
|||||||
|
method = "binaryOperation",
|
||||||
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.STRING_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${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};" +
|
||||||
Add documentation since the interface is public. Add documentation since the interface is public.
does it make sense to do invoke without does it make sense to do invoke without `operator`? It seems that it should be renamed to `compile`. Those method need to be documented as well.
OK OK
OK OK
It seems like It seems like `compile` is a better name.
|
|||||||
|
"L${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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 class AsmVariableExpression<T>(private val name: String, private val default: T? = null) :
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>): Unit = gen.visitLoadFromVariables(name, default)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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 class AsmConstantExpression<T>(private val value: T) :
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun tryEvaluate(): T = value
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>): Unit = gen.visitLoadFromConstants(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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 class AsmConstProductExpression<T>(
|
||||||
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 context: Space<T>,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
expr: AsmNode<T>,
|
||||||
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 const: Number
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
) : AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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 expr: AsmNode<T> = expr.optimize()
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun tryEvaluate(): T? = context { (expr.tryEvaluate() ?: return@context null) * const }
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>) {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitLoadAlgebra()
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitNumberConstant(const)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
expr.compile(gen)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
gen.visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
owner = AsmGenerationContext.SPACE_OPERATIONS_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.
|
|||||||
|
method = "multiply",
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 class AsmNumberExpression<T>(private val context: NumericAlgebra<T>, private val value: Number) :
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmNode<T>() {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun tryEvaluate(): T? = context.number(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun compile(gen: AsmGenerationContext<T>): Unit = gen.visitNumberConstant(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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 abstract class FunctionalCompiledExpression<T> internal constructor(
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
@JvmField protected val algebra: Algebra<T>,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
@JvmField protected val constants: Array<Any>
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
) : Expression<T> {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
abstract override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* A context class for [AsmNode] construction.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
interface AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A : NumericAlgebra<T>> : NumericAlgebra<AsmNode<T>>,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
ExpressionAlgebra<T, AsmNode<T>> {
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* The algebra to provide for AsmExpressions built.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
val algebra: A
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression to wrap a number.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun number(value: Number): AsmNode<T> = AsmNumberExpression(algebra, value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of constant expression which does not depend on arguments.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun const(value: T): AsmNode<T> = AsmConstantExpression(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression to access a variable.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun variable(name: String, default: T?): AsmNode<T> = AsmVariableExpression(name, default)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of dynamic call of binary operation [operation] on [left] and [right].
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: AsmNode<T>, right: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmBinaryOperation(algebra, operation, left, right)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of dynamic call of unary operation with name [operation] on [arg].
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmUnaryOperation(algebra, operation, arg)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* A context class for [AsmNode] construction for [Space] algebras.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
open class AsmExpressionSpace<T, A>(override val algebra: A) : AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A>,
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
Space<AsmNode<T>> where A : Space<T>, A : NumericAlgebra<T> {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override val zero: AsmNode<T>
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
get() = const(algebra.zero)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of addition of two another expressions.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun add(a: AsmNode<T>, b: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmBinaryOperation(algebra, SpaceOperations.PLUS_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of multiplication of expression by number.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun multiply(a: AsmNode<T>, k: Number): AsmNode<T> = AsmConstProductExpression(algebra, a, k)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun AsmNode<T>.plus(arg: T): AsmNode<T> = this + const(arg)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun AsmNode<T>.minus(arg: T): AsmNode<T> = this - const(arg)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun T.plus(arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> = arg + this
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun T.minus(arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> = arg - this
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionAlgebra>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: AsmNode<T>, right: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionAlgebra>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* A context class for [AsmNode] construction for [Ring] algebras.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
open class AsmExpressionRing<T, A>(override val algebra: A) : AsmExpressionSpace<T, A>(algebra),
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
Ring<AsmNode<T>> where A : Ring<T>, A : NumericAlgebra<T> {
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
override val one: AsmNode<T>
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
get() = const(algebra.one)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of multiplication of two expressions.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun multiply(a: AsmNode<T>, b: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmBinaryOperation(algebra, RingOperations.TIMES_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun AsmNode<T>.times(arg: T): AsmNode<T> = this * const(arg)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun T.times(arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> = arg * this
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionSpace>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: AsmNode<T>, right: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionSpace>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun number(value: Number): AsmNode<T> = super<AsmExpressionSpace>.number(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* A context class for [AsmNode] construction for [Field] algebras.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
open class AsmExpressionField<T, A>(override val algebra: A) :
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmExpressionRing<T, A>(algebra),
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
Field<AsmNode<T>> where A : Field<T>, A : NumericAlgebra<T> {
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
* Builds an AsmExpression of division an expression by another one.
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun divide(a: AsmNode<T>, b: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
AsmBinaryOperation(algebra, FieldOperations.DIV_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun AsmNode<T>.div(arg: T): AsmNode<T> = this / const(arg)
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
operator fun T.div(arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> = arg / this
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionRing>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: AsmNode<T>, right: AsmNode<T>): AsmNode<T> =
|
||||||
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.
|
|||||||
|
super<AsmExpressionRing>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
|||||||
|
override fun number(value: Number): AsmNode<T> = super<AsmExpressionRing>.number(value)
|
||||||
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.
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.
|
@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.asm.internal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.ClassWriter
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.Label
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.MethodVisitor
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.Opcodes
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.FunctionalCompiledExpression
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.internal.AsmGenerationContext.ClassLoader
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Algebra
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* AsmGenerationContext is a structure that abstracts building a class that unwraps [AsmNode] to plain Java
|
||||||
|
* expression. This class uses [ClassLoader] for loading the generated class, then it is able to instantiate the new
|
||||||
|
* class.
|
||||||
|
*
|
||||||
|
* @param T the type of AsmExpression to unwrap.
|
||||||
|
* @param algebra the algebra the applied AsmExpressions use.
|
||||||
|
* @param className the unique class name of new loaded class.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
|
internal class AsmGenerationContext<T> @PublishedApi internal constructor(
|
||||||
|
private val classOfT: Class<*>,
|
||||||
|
private val algebra: Algebra<T>,
|
||||||
|
private val className: String
|
||||||
|
) {
|
||||||
|
private class ClassLoader(parent: java.lang.ClassLoader) : java.lang.ClassLoader(parent) {
|
||||||
|
internal fun defineClass(name: String?, b: ByteArray): Class<*> = defineClass(name, b, 0, b.size)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private val classLoader: ClassLoader =
|
||||||
|
ClassLoader(javaClass.classLoader)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@Suppress("PrivatePropertyName")
|
||||||
|
private val T_ALGEBRA_CLASS: String = algebra.javaClass.name.replace(oldChar = '.', newChar = '/')
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@Suppress("PrivatePropertyName")
|
||||||
|
private val T_CLASS: String = classOfT.name.replace('.', '/')
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private val slashesClassName: String = className.replace(oldChar = '.', newChar = '/')
|
||||||
|
private val invokeThisVar: Int = 0
|
||||||
|
private val invokeArgumentsVar: Int = 1
|
||||||
|
private var maxStack: Int = 0
|
||||||
|
private val constants: MutableList<Any> = mutableListOf()
|
||||||
|
private val asmCompiledClassWriter: ClassWriter = ClassWriter(0)
|
||||||
|
private val invokeMethodVisitor: MethodVisitor
|
||||||
|
private val invokeL0: Label
|
||||||
|
private lateinit var invokeL1: Label
|
||||||
|
private var generatedInstance: FunctionalCompiledExpression<T>? = null
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
init {
|
||||||
|
asmCompiledClassWriter.visit(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.V1_8,
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.ACC_PUBLIC or Opcodes.ACC_FINAL or Opcodes.ACC_SUPER,
|
||||||
|
slashesClassName,
|
||||||
|
"L$FUNCTIONAL_COMPILED_EXPRESSION_CLASS<L$T_CLASS;>;",
|
||||||
|
FUNCTIONAL_COMPILED_EXPRESSION_CLASS,
|
||||||
|
arrayOf()
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
asmCompiledClassWriter.run {
|
||||||
|
visitMethod(Opcodes.ACC_PUBLIC, "<init>", "(L$ALGEBRA_CLASS;[L$OBJECT_CLASS;)V", null, null).run {
|
||||||
|
val thisVar = 0
|
||||||
|
val algebraVar = 1
|
||||||
|
val constantsVar = 2
|
||||||
|
val l0 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(l0)
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, thisVar)
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, algebraVar)
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, constantsVar)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitMethodInsn(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.INVOKESPECIAL,
|
||||||
|
FUNCTIONAL_COMPILED_EXPRESSION_CLASS,
|
||||||
|
"<init>",
|
||||||
|
"(L$ALGEBRA_CLASS;[L$OBJECT_CLASS;)V",
|
||||||
|
false
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
val l1 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(l1)
|
||||||
|
visitInsn(Opcodes.RETURN)
|
||||||
|
val l2 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(l2)
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable("this", "L$slashesClassName;", null, l0, l2, thisVar)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable(
|
||||||
|
"algebra",
|
||||||
|
"L$ALGEBRA_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
"L$ALGEBRA_CLASS<L$T_CLASS;>;",
|
||||||
|
l0,
|
||||||
|
l2,
|
||||||
|
algebraVar
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable("constants", "[L$OBJECT_CLASS;", null, l0, l2, constantsVar)
|
||||||
|
visitMaxs(3, 3)
|
||||||
|
visitEnd()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor = visitMethod(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.ACC_PUBLIC or Opcodes.ACC_FINAL,
|
||||||
|
"invoke",
|
||||||
|
"(L$MAP_CLASS;)L$T_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
"(L$MAP_CLASS<L$STRING_CLASS;+L$T_CLASS;>;)L$T_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
null
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.run {
|
||||||
|
visitCode()
|
||||||
|
invokeL0 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(invokeL0)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
|
@Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
|
||||||
|
internal fun generate(): FunctionalCompiledExpression<T> {
|
||||||
|
generatedInstance?.let { return it }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.run {
|
||||||
|
visitInsn(Opcodes.ARETURN)
|
||||||
|
invokeL1 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(invokeL1)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable(
|
||||||
|
"this",
|
||||||
|
"L$slashesClassName;",
|
||||||
|
T_CLASS,
|
||||||
|
invokeL0,
|
||||||
|
invokeL1,
|
||||||
|
invokeThisVar
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable(
|
||||||
|
"arguments",
|
||||||
|
"L$MAP_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
"L$MAP_CLASS<L$STRING_CLASS;+L$T_CLASS;>;",
|
||||||
|
invokeL0,
|
||||||
|
invokeL1,
|
||||||
|
invokeArgumentsVar
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitMaxs(maxStack + 1, 2)
|
||||||
|
visitEnd()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
asmCompiledClassWriter.visitMethod(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.ACC_PUBLIC or Opcodes.ACC_FINAL or Opcodes.ACC_BRIDGE or Opcodes.ACC_SYNTHETIC,
|
||||||
|
"invoke",
|
||||||
|
"(L$MAP_CLASS;)L$OBJECT_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
null,
|
||||||
|
null
|
||||||
|
).run {
|
||||||
|
val thisVar = 0
|
||||||
|
visitCode()
|
||||||
|
val l0 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(l0)
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, 0)
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, 1)
|
||||||
|
visitMethodInsn(Opcodes.INVOKEVIRTUAL, slashesClassName, "invoke", "(L$MAP_CLASS;)L$T_CLASS;", false)
|
||||||
|
visitInsn(Opcodes.ARETURN)
|
||||||
|
val l1 = Label()
|
||||||
|
visitLabel(l1)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLocalVariable(
|
||||||
|
"this",
|
||||||
|
"L$slashesClassName;",
|
||||||
|
T_CLASS,
|
||||||
|
l0,
|
||||||
|
l1,
|
||||||
|
thisVar
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitMaxs(2, 2)
|
||||||
|
visitEnd()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
asmCompiledClassWriter.visitEnd()
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
val new = classLoader
|
||||||
|
.defineClass(className, asmCompiledClassWriter.toByteArray())
|
||||||
|
.constructors
|
||||||
|
.first()
|
||||||
|
.newInstance(algebra, constants.toTypedArray()) as FunctionalCompiledExpression<T>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
generatedInstance = new
|
||||||
|
return new
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitLoadFromConstants(value: T) {
|
||||||
|
if (classOfT in INLINABLE_NUMBERS) {
|
||||||
|
visitNumberConstant(value as Number)
|
||||||
|
visitCastToT()
|
||||||
|
return
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLoadAnyFromConstants(value as Any, T_CLASS)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private fun visitLoadAnyFromConstants(value: Any, type: String) {
|
||||||
|
val idx = if (value in constants) constants.indexOf(value) else constants.apply { add(value) }.lastIndex
|
||||||
|
maxStack++
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.run {
|
||||||
|
visitLoadThis()
|
||||||
|
visitFieldInsn(Opcodes.GETFIELD, slashesClassName, "constants", "[L$OBJECT_CLASS;")
|
||||||
|
visitLdcOrIConstInsn(idx)
|
||||||
|
visitInsn(Opcodes.AALOAD)
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitTypeInsn(Opcodes.CHECKCAST, type)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private fun visitLoadThis(): Unit = invokeMethodVisitor.visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, invokeThisVar)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitNumberConstant(value: Number) {
|
||||||
|
maxStack++
|
||||||
|
val clazz = value.javaClass
|
||||||
|
val c = clazz.name.replace('.', '/')
|
||||||
|
val sigLetter = SIGNATURE_LETTERS[clazz]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if (sigLetter != null) {
|
||||||
|
when (value) {
|
||||||
|
is Int -> invokeMethodVisitor.visitLdcOrIConstInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
is Double -> invokeMethodVisitor.visitLdcOrDConstInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
is Float -> invokeMethodVisitor.visitLdcOrFConstInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
else -> invokeMethodVisitor.visitLdcInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitMethodInsn(Opcodes.INVOKESTATIC, c, "valueOf", "($sigLetter)L${c};", false)
|
||||||
|
return
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLoadAnyFromConstants(value, c)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitLoadFromVariables(name: String, defaultValue: T? = null): Unit = invokeMethodVisitor.run {
|
||||||
|
maxStack += 2
|
||||||
|
visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, invokeArgumentsVar)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if (defaultValue != null) {
|
||||||
|
visitLdcInsn(name)
|
||||||
|
visitLoadFromConstants(defaultValue)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitMethodInsn(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.INVOKEINTERFACE,
|
||||||
|
MAP_CLASS,
|
||||||
|
"getOrDefault",
|
||||||
|
"(L$OBJECT_CLASS;L$OBJECT_CLASS;)L$OBJECT_CLASS;",
|
||||||
|
true
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitCastToT()
|
||||||
|
return
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitLdcInsn(name)
|
||||||
|
visitMethodInsn(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.INVOKEINTERFACE,
|
||||||
|
MAP_CLASS, "get", "(L$OBJECT_CLASS;)L$OBJECT_CLASS;", true
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
visitCastToT()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitLoadAlgebra() {
|
||||||
|
maxStack++
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitVarInsn(Opcodes.ALOAD, invokeThisVar)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitFieldInsn(
|
||||||
|
Opcodes.GETFIELD,
|
||||||
|
FUNCTIONAL_COMPILED_EXPRESSION_CLASS, "algebra", "L$ALGEBRA_CLASS;"
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitTypeInsn(Opcodes.CHECKCAST, T_ALGEBRA_CLASS)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||||
|
owner: String,
|
||||||
|
method: String,
|
||||||
|
descriptor: String,
|
||||||
|
opcode: Int = Opcodes.INVOKEINTERFACE,
|
||||||
|
isInterface: Boolean = true
|
||||||
|
) {
|
||||||
|
maxStack++
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitMethodInsn(opcode, owner, method, descriptor, isInterface)
|
||||||
|
visitCastToT()
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private fun visitCastToT(): Unit = invokeMethodVisitor.visitTypeInsn(Opcodes.CHECKCAST, T_CLASS)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun visitStringConstant(string: String) {
|
||||||
|
invokeMethodVisitor.visitLdcInsn(string)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal companion object {
|
||||||
|
private val SIGNATURE_LETTERS by lazy {
|
||||||
|
mapOf(
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Byte::class.java to "B",
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Short::class.java to "S",
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Integer::class.java to "I",
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Long::class.java to "J",
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Float::class.java to "F",
|
||||||
|
java.lang.Double::class.java to "D"
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private val INLINABLE_NUMBERS by lazy { SIGNATURE_LETTERS.keys }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal const val FUNCTIONAL_COMPILED_EXPRESSION_CLASS =
|
||||||
|
"scientifik/kmath/asm/FunctionalCompiledExpression"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal const val MAP_CLASS = "java/util/Map"
|
||||||
|
internal const val OBJECT_CLASS = "java/lang/Object"
|
||||||
|
internal const val ALGEBRA_CLASS = "scientifik/kmath/operations/Algebra"
|
||||||
|
internal const val SPACE_OPERATIONS_CLASS = "scientifik/kmath/operations/SpaceOperations"
|
||||||
|
internal const val STRING_CLASS = "java/lang/String"
|
||||||
|
internal const val NUMBER_CLASS = "java/lang/Number"
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.asm.internal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.MethodVisitor
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.Opcodes.*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun MethodVisitor.visitLdcOrIConstInsn(value: Int) = when (value) {
|
||||||
|
-1 -> visitInsn(ICONST_M1)
|
||||||
|
0 -> visitInsn(ICONST_0)
|
||||||
|
1 -> visitInsn(ICONST_1)
|
||||||
|
2 -> visitInsn(ICONST_2)
|
||||||
|
3 -> visitInsn(ICONST_3)
|
||||||
|
4 -> visitInsn(ICONST_4)
|
||||||
|
5 -> visitInsn(ICONST_5)
|
||||||
|
else -> visitLdcInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun MethodVisitor.visitLdcOrDConstInsn(value: Double) = when (value) {
|
||||||
|
0.0 -> visitInsn(DCONST_0)
|
||||||
|
1.0 -> visitInsn(DCONST_1)
|
||||||
|
else -> visitLdcInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun MethodVisitor.visitLdcOrFConstInsn(value: Float) = when (value) {
|
||||||
|
0f -> visitInsn(FCONST_0)
|
||||||
|
1f -> visitInsn(FCONST_1)
|
||||||
|
2f -> visitInsn(FCONST_2)
|
||||||
|
else -> visitLdcInsn(value)
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.asm.internal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import org.objectweb.asm.Opcodes
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.AsmConstantExpression
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.AsmNode
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Algebra
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
private val methodNameAdapters: Map<String, String> = mapOf("+" to "add", "*" to "multiply", "/" to "divide")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun <T> hasSpecific(context: Algebra<T>, name: String, arity: Int): Boolean {
|
||||||
|
val aName = methodNameAdapters[name] ?: name
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
context::class.java.methods.find { it.name == aName && it.parameters.size == arity }
|
||||||
|
?: return false
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return true
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal fun <T> AsmGenerationContext<T>.tryInvokeSpecific(context: Algebra<T>, name: String, arity: Int): Boolean {
|
||||||
|
val aName = methodNameAdapters[name] ?: name
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
context::class.java.methods.find { it.name == aName && it.parameters.size == arity }
|
||||||
|
?: return false
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
val owner = context::class.java.name.replace('.', '/')
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
val sig = buildString {
|
||||||
|
append('(')
|
||||||
|
repeat(arity) { append("L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};") }
|
||||||
|
append(')')
|
||||||
|
append("L${AsmGenerationContext.OBJECT_CLASS};")
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
visitAlgebraOperation(
|
||||||
|
owner = owner,
|
||||||
|
method = aName,
|
||||||
|
descriptor = sig,
|
||||||
|
opcode = Opcodes.INVOKEVIRTUAL,
|
||||||
|
isInterface = false
|
||||||
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return true
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@PublishedApi
|
||||||
|
internal fun <T> AsmNode<T>.optimize(): AsmNode<T> {
|
||||||
|
val a = tryEvaluate()
|
||||||
|
return if (a == null) this else AsmConstantExpression(a)
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
package scientifik.kmath.ast
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.Expression
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Algebra
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.NumericAlgebra
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
//TODO stubs for asm generation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
interface AsmExpression<T>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
interface AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A : Algebra<T>> : NumericAlgebra<AsmExpression<T>> {
|
|
||||||
val algebra: A
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
fun <T> AsmExpression<T>.compile(): Expression<T> = TODO()
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
//TODO add converter for functional expressions
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
inline fun <reified T : Any, A : Algebra<T>> A.asm(
|
|
||||||
block: AsmExpressionAlgebra<T, A>.() -> AsmExpression<T>
|
|
||||||
): Expression<T> = TODO()
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
inline fun <reified T : Any, A : Algebra<T>> A.asm(ast: MST): Expression<T> = asm { evaluate(ast) }
|
|
18
kmath-ast/src/jvmTest/kotlin/scietifik/kmath/ast/AsmTest.kt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scietifik.kmath.ast
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.asmField
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.ast.parseMath
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.invoke
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Complex
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.ComplexField
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.assertEquals
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
class AsmTest {
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun parsedExpression() {
|
||||||
|
val mst = "2+2*(2+2)".parseMath()
|
||||||
|
val res = ComplexField.asmField(mst)()
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(Complex(10.0, 0.0), res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
|
|||||||
package scietifik.kmath.ast
|
package scietifik.kmath.ast
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals
|
|
||||||
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.ast.evaluate
|
import scientifik.kmath.ast.evaluate
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.ast.parseMath
|
import scientifik.kmath.ast.parseMath
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Complex
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Complex
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.ComplexField
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.ComplexField
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.assertEquals
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class ParserTest{
|
internal class ParserTest {
|
||||||
@Test
|
@Test
|
||||||
fun parsedExpression(){
|
fun parsedExpression() {
|
||||||
val mst = "2+2*(2+2)".parseMath()
|
val mst = "2+2*(2+2)".parseMath()
|
||||||
val res = ComplexField.evaluate(mst)
|
val res = ComplexField.evaluate(mst)
|
||||||
assertEquals(Complex(10.0,0.0), res)
|
assertEquals(Complex(10.0, 0.0), res)
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scietifik.kmath.ast.asm
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.asmField
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.asmRing
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.asmSpace
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.invoke
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.ByteRing
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.RealField
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.Test
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.assertEquals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
class TestAsmAlgebras {
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun space() {
|
||||||
|
val res = ByteRing.asmSpace {
|
||||||
|
binaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
unaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
3.toByte() - (2.toByte() + (multiply(
|
||||||
|
add(const(1), const(1)),
|
||||||
|
2
|
||||||
|
) + 1.toByte()) * 3.toByte() - 1.toByte())
|
||||||
|
),
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
number(1)
|
||||||
|
) + variable("x") + zero
|
||||||
|
}("x" to 2.toByte())
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(16, res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun ring() {
|
||||||
|
val res = ByteRing.asmRing {
|
||||||
|
binaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
unaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
(3.toByte() - (2.toByte() + (multiply(
|
||||||
|
add(const(1), const(1)),
|
||||||
|
2
|
||||||
|
) + 1.toByte()))) * 3.0 - 1.toByte()
|
||||||
|
),
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
number(1)
|
||||||
|
) * const(2)
|
||||||
|
}()
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(24, res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun field() {
|
||||||
|
val res = RealField.asmField {
|
||||||
|
divide(binaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
unaryOperation(
|
||||||
|
"+",
|
||||||
|
(3.0 - (2.0 + (multiply(
|
||||||
|
add(const(1.0), const(1.0)),
|
||||||
|
2
|
||||||
|
) + 1.0))) * 3 - 1.0
|
||||||
|
),
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
number(1)
|
||||||
|
) / 2, const(2.0)) * one
|
||||||
|
}()
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(3.0, res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scietifik.kmath.ast.asm
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.asm.asmField
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.expressions.invoke
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.RealField
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.Test
|
||||||
|
import kotlin.test.assertEquals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
class TestAsmExpressions {
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun testUnaryOperationInvocation() {
|
||||||
|
val res = RealField.asmField { unaryOperation("+", variable("x")) }("x" to 2.0)
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(2.0, res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@Test
|
||||||
|
fun testConstProductInvocation() {
|
||||||
|
val res = RealField.asmField { variable("x") * 2 }("x" to 2.0)
|
||||||
|
assertEquals(4.0, res)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ kotlin.sourceSets {
|
|||||||
api(project(":kmath-memory"))
|
api(project(":kmath-memory"))
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.expressions
|
||||||
There is no class called There is no class called `Builders`. I suggest starting the name with lower case letter.
Yes, but there are some variations of file naming accepted by the communitiy. And there is a style that is used accross other modules, so we need to keepr it uniform. I will write a doc file with local conventions. Yes, but there are some variations of file naming accepted by the communitiy. And there is a style that is used accross other modules, so we need to keepr it uniform. I will write a doc file with local conventions.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Field
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Ring
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Space
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Create a functional expression on this [Space]
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
fun <T> Space<T>.buildExpression(block: FunctionalExpressionSpace<T, Space<T>>.() -> Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalExpressionSpace(this).run(block)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Create a functional expression on this [Ring]
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
fun <T> Ring<T>.buildExpression(block: FunctionalExpressionRing<T, Ring<T>>.() -> Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalExpressionRing(this).run(block)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Create a functional expression on this [Field]
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
fun <T> Field<T>.buildExpression(block: FunctionalExpressionField<T, Field<T>>.() -> Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalExpressionField(this).run(block)
|
@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
|
|||||||
|
package scientifik.kmath.expressions
|
||||||
The rename is meaningless since there is no class with that name. FunctionalExpressionAlgebra is acceptable though. The rename is meaningless since there is no class with that name. FunctionalExpressionAlgebra is acceptable though.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
import scientifik.kmath.operations.*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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))
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal class FunctionalBinaryOperation<T>(
|
||||||
|
val context: Algebra<T>,
|
||||||
|
val name: String,
|
||||||
|
val first: Expression<T>,
|
||||||
|
val second: Expression<T>
|
||||||
|
) : Expression<T> {
|
||||||
|
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T =
|
||||||
|
context.binaryOperation(name, first.invoke(arguments), second.invoke(arguments))
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal class FunctionalVariableExpression<T>(val name: String, val default: T? = null) : Expression<T> {
|
||||||
|
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T =
|
||||||
|
arguments[name] ?: default ?: error("Parameter not found: $name")
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal class FunctionalConstantExpression<T>(val value: T) : Expression<T> {
|
||||||
|
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = value
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
internal class FunctionalConstProductExpression<T>(
|
||||||
|
val context: Space<T>,
|
||||||
|
private val expr: Expression<T>,
|
||||||
|
val const: Number
|
||||||
|
) : Expression<T> {
|
||||||
|
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = context.multiply(expr.invoke(arguments), const)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* A context class for [Expression] construction.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
interface FunctionalExpressionAlgebra<T, A : Algebra<T>> : ExpressionAlgebra<T, Expression<T>> {
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* The algebra to provide for Expressions built.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
val algebra: A
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of constant expression which does not depend on arguments.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun const(value: T): Expression<T> = FunctionalConstantExpression(value)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression to access a variable.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun variable(name: String, default: T?): Expression<T> = FunctionalVariableExpression(name, default)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of dynamic call of binary operation [operation] on [left] and [right].
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: Expression<T>, right: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalBinaryOperation(algebra, operation, left, right)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of dynamic call of unary operation with name [operation] on [arg].
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalUnaryOperation(algebra, operation, arg)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* A context class for [Expression] construction for [Space] algebras.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
open class FunctionalExpressionSpace<T, A>(override val algebra: A) : FunctionalExpressionAlgebra<T, A>,
|
||||||
|
Space<Expression<T>> where A : Space<T> {
|
||||||
|
override val zero: Expression<T>
|
||||||
|
get() = const(algebra.zero)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of addition of two another expressions.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun add(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalBinaryOperation(algebra, SpaceOperations.PLUS_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of multiplication of expression by number.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun multiply(a: Expression<T>, k: Number): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalConstProductExpression(algebra, a, k)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
operator fun Expression<T>.plus(arg: T): Expression<T> = this + const(arg)
|
||||||
|
operator fun Expression<T>.minus(arg: T): Expression<T> = this - const(arg)
|
||||||
|
operator fun T.plus(arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = arg + this
|
||||||
|
operator fun T.minus(arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = arg - this
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionAlgebra>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: Expression<T>, right: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionAlgebra>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
open class FunctionalExpressionRing<T, A>(override val algebra: A) : FunctionalExpressionSpace<T, A>(algebra),
|
||||||
|
Ring<Expression<T>> where A : Ring<T>, A : NumericAlgebra<T> {
|
||||||
|
override val one: Expression<T>
|
||||||
|
get() = const(algebra.one)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of multiplication of two expressions.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun multiply(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalBinaryOperation(algebra, RingOperations.TIMES_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
operator fun Expression<T>.times(arg: T): Expression<T> = this * const(arg)
|
||||||
|
operator fun T.times(arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = arg * this
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionSpace>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: Expression<T>, right: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionSpace>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
open class FunctionalExpressionField<T, A>(override val algebra: A) :
|
||||||
|
FunctionalExpressionRing<T, A>(algebra),
|
||||||
|
Field<Expression<T>> where A : Field<T>, A : NumericAlgebra<T> {
|
||||||
|
/**
|
||||||
|
* Builds an Expression of division an expression by another one.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
override fun divide(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
FunctionalBinaryOperation(algebra, FieldOperations.DIV_OPERATION, a, b)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
operator fun Expression<T>.div(arg: T): Expression<T> = this / const(arg)
|
||||||
|
operator fun T.div(arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = arg / this
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun unaryOperation(operation: String, arg: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionRing>.unaryOperation(operation, arg)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
override fun binaryOperation(operation: String, left: Expression<T>, right: Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
||||||
|
super<FunctionalExpressionRing>.binaryOperation(operation, left, right)
|
||||||
|
}
|
@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
package scientifik.kmath.expressions
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Field
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Ring
|
|
||||||
import scientifik.kmath.operations.Space
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class VariableExpression<T>(val name: String, val default: T? = null) : Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T =
|
|
||||||
arguments[name] ?: default ?: error("Parameter not found: $name")
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class ConstantExpression<T>(val value: T) : Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = value
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class SumExpression<T>(
|
|
||||||
val context: Space<T>,
|
|
||||||
val first: Expression<T>,
|
|
||||||
val second: Expression<T>
|
|
||||||
) : Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = context.add(first.invoke(arguments), second.invoke(arguments))
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class ProductExpression<T>(
|
|
||||||
val context: Ring<T>,
|
|
||||||
val first: Expression<T>,
|
|
||||||
val second: Expression<T>
|
|
||||||
) : Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T =
|
|
||||||
context.multiply(first.invoke(arguments), second.invoke(arguments))
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class ConstProductExpession<T>(val context: Space<T>, val expr: Expression<T>, val const: Number) :
|
|
||||||
Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = context.multiply(expr.invoke(arguments), const)
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
internal class DivExpession<T>(val context: Field<T>, val expr: Expression<T>, val second: Expression<T>) :
|
|
||||||
Expression<T> {
|
|
||||||
override fun invoke(arguments: Map<String, T>): T = context.divide(expr.invoke(arguments), second.invoke(arguments))
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
open class FunctionalExpressionSpace<T>(
|
|
||||||
val space: Space<T>
|
|
||||||
) : Space<Expression<T>>, ExpressionAlgebra<T, Expression<T>> {
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override val zero: Expression<T> = ConstantExpression(space.zero)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun const(value: T): Expression<T> = ConstantExpression(value)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun variable(name: String, default: T?): Expression<T> = VariableExpression(name, default)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun add(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = SumExpression(space, a, b)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun multiply(a: Expression<T>, k: Number): Expression<T> = ConstProductExpession(space, a, k)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
operator fun Expression<T>.plus(arg: T) = this + const(arg)
|
|
||||||
operator fun Expression<T>.minus(arg: T) = this - const(arg)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
operator fun T.plus(arg: Expression<T>) = arg + this
|
|
||||||
operator fun T.minus(arg: Expression<T>) = arg - this
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
open class FunctionalExpressionField<T>(
|
|
||||||
val field: Field<T>
|
|
||||||
) : Field<Expression<T>>, ExpressionAlgebra<T, Expression<T>>, FunctionalExpressionSpace<T>(field) {
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override val one: Expression<T> = ConstantExpression(this.field.one)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
fun const(value: Double): Expression<T> = const(field.run { one * value })
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun multiply(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = ProductExpression(field, a, b)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
override fun divide(a: Expression<T>, b: Expression<T>): Expression<T> = DivExpession(field, a, b)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
operator fun Expression<T>.times(arg: T) = this * const(arg)
|
|
||||||
operator fun Expression<T>.div(arg: T) = this / const(arg)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
operator fun T.times(arg: Expression<T>) = arg * this
|
|
||||||
operator fun T.div(arg: Expression<T>) = arg / this
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/**
|
|
||||||
* Create a functional expression on this [Space]
|
|
||||||
*/
|
|
||||||
fun <T> Space<T>.buildExpression(block: FunctionalExpressionSpace<T>.() -> Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
|
||||||
FunctionalExpressionSpace(this).run(block)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/**
|
|
||||||
* Create a functional expression on this [Field]
|
|
||||||
*/
|
|
||||||
fun <T> Field<T>.buildExpression(block: FunctionalExpressionField<T>.() -> Expression<T>): Expression<T> =
|
|
||||||
FunctionalExpressionField(this).run(block)
|
|
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
compile
is a better name.It seems like
compile
is a better name.