another mechanism for rules#810
Draft
Bumblebee00 wants to merge 7 commits intoJuliaSymbolics:masterfrom
Draft
Conversation
Contributor
Benchmark Results (Julia vlts)Time benchmarks
Memory benchmarks
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In terms of performance the two biggest problem of rule macro are:
So i tought of a simpler approach: instead of creating the a rule object we just store the quoted expression, and then we check if it's equal to the input expression with a simple recursive function. And problem 1 goes away. For problem 2 I tried to write this recursive function specifying the types but I am not sure I made it corrrectly. I made a test in wich 100 rules are created and 100 random expressions are compared to the rules, both using the old @ rule macro and this new approach, and it seems 25 times faster.