[Patches] [ python-Patches-872326 ] generator expression
implementation
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Wed May 12 11:26:19 EDT 2004
Patches item #872326, was opened at 2004-01-07 12:10
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by arigo
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=872326&group_id=5470
Category: Parser/Compiler
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 7
Submitted By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: generator expression implementation
Initial Comment:
Since I was interested in pep 289(generator
expression), I dabbled with it, and implemented a
working version of it. I'm not sure if I did it right,
but maybe someone who knows better can fix it right.
1. Grammar has two changes, which is
a. atom: '(' [testlist] ')' | '[' [listmaker] ']' | ...
changes to
atom: '(' [testgenexpr] ')' | '[' [listmaker] ']' | ...
where testgenexpr defines like this.
testgenexpr: test ( gen_for | (',' test)* [','] )
b. argument: [test '='] test
changes to
argument: [test '='] test [gen_for]
(gen_for, gen_if, gen_iter is similar to list_for,
list_if, list_iter respectively.)
2. Instead of changing rule of arglist in Grammar to
accept generator expression, I changed argument rule
like 1.b. This means Grammar accepts generator
expression without parenthesis in function call even
there are several arguments, like
reduce(operator.add, (x for x in range(10)))
This is against what pep requires, so I made
parsermodule.c and compile.c to catch that and throw
error message when there's more than one argument in a
function. The reason I did it that way is to go around
a problem of ambiguity in the grammar by adding
generator expression to arglist.
3. I implemented generator expression as equivalent to
a call to a function which has variable capturing code
and generator code. For example,
x = 1
g = (x for i in range(10))
is equivalent to
x = 1
def __gen_wrapper():
_[x] = x # variable capture here
def __gen():
for i in range(10):
yield _[x]
return __gen()
g = __gen_wrapper()
4. Since I implemented generator expression equivalent
to a function call, symbol table should enter new scope
when it meets generator expression. So I ended up with
adding following code to symtable.c
PyObject *
PySymtableEntry_New(struct symtable *st, char *name,
int type, int lineno)
{
...
switch (type) {
case funcdef:
case lambdef:
! case testgenexpr: /* generator expression */
! case argument: /* generator expression */
ste->ste_type = TYPE_FUNCTION;
break;
...
so that generator expression can be dealt as function
type. This is kind of stupid, but I couldn't find other
easy for it, so I just left it like that.
5. this patch does not include diff of
src/Lib/symbol.py, so you must run python Lib/symbol.py
to get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-05-12 15:26
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
Which is exactly why I cannot understand why you are so keen on one binding model rather than the other, if it doesn't matter. It looks like we are going to add is a feature that doesn't scale to advanced usages. Moreover it seems really obvious that non-experts *will* get surprizes, because they *will* try to replace all their listcomps with genexprs -- they shouldn't do that, but of course they will do it anyway, because it appears to work -- until the occasional strange bug kreeps in, and one that is difficult to actually relate to the genexpr in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2004-05-12 14:03
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
You're just showing that saving genexprs up for later use is
a bad idea. We should place clear warnings in the docs that
the genexpr should be used up right away, and otherwise to
write an explicit generator function.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-05-12 08:30
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
I don't think that "lazy-binding + leftmost iterable
precomputation" makes sense. Just adding another for-loop
to the example shows the reason.
>>> x = 10
>>> g = ((i,j) for i in range(x) for j in range(x))
>>> x = 5
>>> list(g)
Here, if j is iterated only to 5 when i is iterated to 10, I think
it would make users confused.
I think "early-binding + leftmost iterable precomputation"
makes sense, but "lazy-binding + leftmost iterable
precomputation" does not make sense IMHO.
About renumbering testlist_gexp in graminit.h, it's not what I
did but it's auto-generated by pgen(Parser/pgenmain.c).
Although it makes another file (symbol.py) need to be
changed (and thus makes cvs log a bit dirty), it's tool-
generated file, so I did it like that. If you think it's better to
do it without re-numbering, let me know or you could do it
yourself. ;^)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2004-05-12 07:32
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
The lazy_bind version has survived over of a month of my
testing and multiple read throughs of the code :-)
I'm not expert with graminit.h but did wonder if testlist_gexp
could have a high numbered code so that other codes would
not have to be re-numbered.
When you get back from military camp, please load the
version that precomputes the outermost iterable. I believe
that is Guido's currently favored approach. Currently, it fails
this test:
>>> x = 10
>>> g = (i*i for i in range(x))
>>> x = 5
>>> list(g) # should be ten items long
[0, 1, 4, 9, 16]
Tim, summarized it as:
"""
... Guido favored mostly-late binding -- which is late
binding, except that the iterable in the leftmost for-clause is
evaluated at once. So
... (e1 for stuff in e2 for morestuff in e3 ...) ...
is effectively replaced by
def __g(primary):
for stuff in primary:
for morestuff in e3:
...
yield e1
... __g(e2) ...
"""
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-03-27 15:56
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
I'm submitting two versions now. One is variable-capture
version(but without any iterable pre-computation), and the
other is lazy-binding version. I'll be in military camp for
about 1 month(4/6~5/2) so I will not be able to fix/patch
anything for the period, thus I'm submitting this in now. :)
If I have time, and necessity arises (before 4/6), I'll also
add outmost-iterable-precomputation version.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2004-03-22 23:00
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Sorry, I meant the first, not the last. I was confused about
how the 'for' clauses are nested, but the outermost one is
the first.
So the nesting remark is probably just confusing and wrong;
ignore it.
What I meant is:
(f(x,y) for x in A() for y in B(x))
should IMO precompute A(), but not B(x). I guess the
equivalent generator function would be:
def __gen(__outer__=A(), f=f, B=B):
for x in __outer__:
for y in B(x):
yield f(x,y)
In general the value of every free variable used anywhere
except in the outer expression should be captured; the
*value* of the outer expression should be captured. This
should give the least surprising semantics in a variaty of use
cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2004-03-22 19:39
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Only the outermost (last) iterable should be precomputed.
While
(f(x,y) for x in A(y) for y in B)
is not the same as
((f(x,y) for x in A(y)) for y in B)
I think the scoping should be done similarly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-03-22 01:57
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
Ah... Maybe we need to drop precomputation of iterables.
I'll post it on the mailing list so that people can consider
about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-03-21 23:40
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
Oh ho. Am I right in fearing that the idea of precomputing the iterables was broken in the first place? We just cannot do this. The things we are looping over may depend on other stuff from the generator expression itself. Example:
>>> [x for l in [[1,2],[3,4]] for x in l]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
>>> (y for m in [[1,2],[3,4]] for y in m)
NameError: name 'm' is not defined
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-21 17:55
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
This inconsistency may not be fixed by list(iter())
workaround, either.
>>> def counter():
... counter.count += 1
... return range(counter.count)
...
>>> counter.count = 0
>>> [y for x in 'abc' for y in counter()]
[0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2]
>>> counter.count = 0
>>> list(y for x in 'abc' for y in counter())
[0, 0, 0]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-21 17:42
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Aah. But I'm not insisting on that because it's incompatible
even with plain nested for-loops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-21 17:38
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Agreed. I'd prefer the current implementation's behavor
rather than defined in PEP289. Yes, It's incompatible with
list comprehensions but generator expressions are already
quite different enough from it. :)
How about to change PEP289's genexpr semantics to this?
g = (x**2 for x in range(10))
print g.next()
is equivalent to:
def __gen(_i1):
for x in _i1:
yield x**2
g = __gen(range(10))
print g.next()
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2004-03-21 17:28
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
You need a solution other than list(). A key to the success
of genexps is to never to eat memory by expanding an
iterator into a container.
For behavior questions, your reference point is the list
comprehension. list(genexp) should always produce the same
result as a list comprehension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-03-21 16:59
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
Hi, quiver. I don't think we can easily go around this problem
if we have to capture iterators in generator expression.
If you run following, you'll know what I mean.
>>> a = iter("abcd")
>>> b = iter("abcd")
>>> [(x, y) for x in a for y in b]
[('a', 'a'), ('a', 'b'), ('a', 'c'), ('a', 'd')]
I think one possible solution could be, instead of passing
evaluations of iterators in generator expression, make a list
from iterator and, then pass it as argument. For instance,
g = (x for x in iter("abcd"))
will be equivalent to,
def __gen(_[1]):
for x in _[1]:
yield x
g = __gen(list(iter("abcd"))) # see 'list'
- instead of g = __gen(iter("abcd")) .
I'm not sure if I'm in a position to decide to do that way or
not. If the current reviewer (rhettinger) approves it, I'll do
that way. Or else, I think I will post it on the mailing list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2004-03-19 13:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
Hi, Jiwon. This is another bug candidate.
If you use genexp with iterators, it doesn't work well.
# test Perky's previous post using iterators
>>> list((x,y) for x in iter('abcd') for y in iter('abcd'))
[('a', 'a'), ('a', 'b'), ('a', 'c'), ('a', 'd')]
Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-03-17 08:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
To fix the bug that perky picked out, I hand-made ast.py
instead of using auto-generated code. But, still I don't
understand why Tools/compiler/regrtest didn't tell me about
it. (Maybe I didn't look at the output carefully enough.)
Ah, and it would be nice if somebody tell me how to run
test_grammar.py(only) with python-compiler package.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-17 06:28
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
The compiler package patch has some problems in its
compiler/ast.py currently.
jiwon said he regenerated it using Tools/compiler/astgen.py.
But it made some incompatibilities against ast.py on current
CVS. For example, class Expression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2004-03-17 06:21
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
I'll give it a second review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-17 05:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Okay. Here's my draft for documentation.
Any review/fix/enhance is very welcome!
I think it's ready to putting it into CVS now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-03-16 16:24
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
ah, the following bug was due to the patch I uploaded
2004-02-04 15:13.
In order to get an error instantly from an expression like
"g=(x for x in None)", I made it equivalent to,
def __gen(_[1]):
for x in _[1]:
yield x
g=__gen(iter(None))
^^^^
But when there is two or more iterator expression of same
symbol(or string), that patch produces error, because
currently, "((x, y) for x in 'abcd' for y in 'abcd') " is
equivalent to,
def __gen(_[1]):
for x in _[1]:
for y in _[1]:
yield (x,y)
g = __gen(iter("abcd")) # passing only one parameter
I could make it pass every iterator expressions respectively
even when they are same symbol(or string, ...), but for
now, I just dropped that patch (patch of 2004-02-04) since
that's the simplest thing now. If somebody says getting
instance error for cases like "(x for x in None)" is
important, I'll make another patch for it.
Btw, added more test case that covers what perky mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-16 04:16
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Another bug in the implementation.
>>> list((x, y) for x in 'abcd' for y in 'abcd')
[('a', 'a'), ('a', 'b'), ('a', 'c'), ('a', 'd')]
Expected behavior may be:
>>> [(x, y) for x in 'abcd' for y in 'abcd']
[('a', 'a'), ('a', 'b'), ('a', 'c'), ('a', 'd'), ('b', 'a'),
('b', 'b'), ('b', 'c'), ('b', 'd'), ('c', 'a'), ('c', 'b'),
('c', 'c'), ('c', 'd'), ('d', 'a'), ('d', 'b'), ('d', 'c'),
('d', 'd')]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-03-14 02:59
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
I'm writing docs for tutorial and language reference. It'll
be completed in a day or two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2004-03-13 21:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
Any recent progress?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-02-23 16:34
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
Whoa! I finally patched compiler package in pure python. (I
was a bit busy recently :)
I've run regression test with 'Tools/compiler/regrtest.py'
before I submit this patch, and there was one failure (which
is test_dis.py). I'm not sure if that's a problem, so I'm
just submitting this in.
Now, I think I'll refactor things a bit!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-02-04 13:53
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
As it mentioned in PEP, even listcomp's leaking of loop
value will be dropped in Python 3. I'm sorry but I don't see
that the usage is solid in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2004-02-04 10:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
What about this code?
In the currently implementation, loop variables inside a list
comprehension is not visible outside if you use it inside a
generator expression.
For example:
>>> (a*b for a in [b for b in range(5)])
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
NameError: name 'b' is not defined
Its list comprehension counterpart is:
>>> [a*b for a in [b for b in range(5)]]
[0, 4, 8, 12, 16]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-02-04 06:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
Again, I fixed the patch so that it can get error from '(x
for x in None)' immediately. (upto now, error does not occur
until generator expression is evaluated)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-02-03 11:46
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
After thinking a bit more on the issue, note that the generator version of your example is equivalent to:
def g():
for y in range(3):
yield lambda x: x+y
which means that it can suffer from the same problem as the first example, but more subtly (and even more confusingly):
for f in g(): print f(0) # 0, 1, 2
for f in list(g()): print f(0) # 2, 2, 2
This is because due to Python's nested scope rules the above generator is equivalent to:
def g():
result = lambda x: x+y
for y in range(3):
yield result
at which point I think it gets pretty confusing...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2004-02-03 09:07
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
Thanks, Arigo and Perky.
Hmm, maybe I should read PEP and the thread about
namespace more carefully, not just skim the surface.
Anyway, PEP has not been updated since last October, so I
think it's good time to merge recent progress of genexpr and
update PEP-289.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-02-02 12:58
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
The behavior is indeed the one described by the PEP but it is still surprising. As far as I'm concerned it is yet another reason why free variable bindings ("nested scopes") are done wrong in Python currently :-(
If you use the older trick "lambda x,y=y:x+y" instead, then both cases will agree (with the sensible result in my opinion). A few more issues and I'll start a campain for definition-time bindings of free variables :-(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-02-02 12:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
I think it's right for namespace difference between listcomp
and genexpr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2004-02-02 11:47
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
I am not sure if I should call this a bug, but here it goes:
>>> lst = [lambda x:x+y for y in range(3)]
>>> for f in lst:print f(0)
...
2
2
2
>>> gen = (lambda x:x+y for y in range(3))
>>> for f in gen:print f(0)
...
0
1
2
Is this the intended behavior?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-02-02 08:29
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
ok. I fixed another bug reported by perky, and added related
test to test_grammar.py.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-30 05:09
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Yet another Fatal Python error;
>>> (a for a in (b for b in (a for a in 'xxx' if True) if
False) if True)
lookup 'True' in ? 3 -1
freevars of <generator expression>: ('True',)
Fatal Python error: com_make_closure()
zsh: abort (core dumped) ./python
# applied patch as of 2004-01-30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-30 03:01
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
ok, I've fixed the bug quiver commented, and added related
test code to test_grammar.py.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2004-01-29 11:48
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
yet another Fatal Python error;
>>> (a for a in (b for b in (0,1)))
<generator object at 0x40170f8c>
>>> (a for a in (b for b in range(2)))
Fatal Python error: unknown scope for range in ?(0) in <stdin>
symbols: {'range': 8}
locals: {}
globals: {}
Aborted
# applied patch as of 2004-01-27
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-27 07:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
I fixed the patch for the bug that arigo mentioned, and for
what perky mentioned - PyList_GetSlice error handling - .
now, I'll tackle python compiler package :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-01-26 15:15
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
>>> (a for d in a)
Fatal Python error: unknown scope for a in <generator
expression>(1) in <stdin>
symbols: {'a': 2048, '_[1]': 4, 'd': 2}
locals: {'_[1]': 0, 'd': 1}
globals: {}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-26 06:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Please ignore the previous comment.
It was a result from an old revision of patches. It works on
the recent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-25 23:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
BTW, does unavaliability of yield (genexpr) and return
(genexpr) an intended behavior?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2004-01-21 18:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6656
Documentation would be nice!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-21 14:14
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Okay. My review is done. The revised patch "gexp.diff" looks fine
for me.
There're few minor tweaks still needed to get into CVS.
- Some error exit cases are ignored. You need to provide safe exit
paths for MemoryError. (eg. PyList_GetSlice usage of Python/
compiler.c)
- A patch for 'compiler' pure python package. (there's an old
implementation on SF #795947)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-19 11:10
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
ok. I modified the patch so that it evaluates iterator expr in
generator expression creation time. That means,
g = (x for x in range(10))
is equivalent to
def __gen(iter1):
for x in iter1:
yield x
g = __gen(range(10))
so, evalution of range(10) is not deferred anymore.
I also changed testgenexpr to testlist_gexp in
Grammar/Grammar, since Hye-Shik Chang advised as such.
I'm willing to take any advice about this patch, so please do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-12 03:26
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
ok. I've implemented capturing variables part as arigo
suggested. File genexpr-capture-vars-in-args.diff is that.
If you look at the code, you'll find that the code for
generator expression is much shorter, and there's lesser
modification in the existing code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-09 01:49
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
What arigo wrote sounds reasonable, and not very difficult
to implement. I'll try to do that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Armin Rigo (arigo)
Date: 2004-01-08 18:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=4771
We may not need two levels of nested anonymous functions. It seems to me that the following equivalent code would do, because it captures the variable in an argument instead of via nested scopes:
x = 1
def __gen(x):
for i in range(10):
yield x
g = __gen(x)
I don't know though if this is easy to implement in compile.c. Alternatively:
x = 1
def __gen(x=x):
for i in range(10):
yield x
g = __gen()
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-08 05:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Okay. I verified that basic characteristics mentioned on PEP
are working.
I started to review the implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jiwon Seo (jiwon)
Date: 2004-01-08 04:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=595483
I added diff of Lib/symbol.py, so no need to run python
Lib/symbol.py now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hye-Shik Chang (perky)
Date: 2004-01-07 12:25
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=55188
Assigned to me.
The originator is my friend and I have much interest on
this. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=872326&group_id=5470
More information about the Patches
mailing list