Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
758 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

haskell - Why recursive `let` make space effcient?

I found this statement while studying Functional Reactive Programming, from "Plugging a Space Leak with an Arrow" by Hai Liu and Paul Hudak ( page 5) :

Suppose we wish to de?ne a function that repeats its argument inde?nitely:

    repeat x = x : repeat x

or, in lambdas:

    repeat = λx → x : repeat x

This requires O(n) space. But we can achieve O(1) space by writing instead:

    repeat = λx → let xs = x : xs
                  in xs

The difference here seems small but it hugely prompts the space efficiency. Why and how it happens ? The best guess I've made is to evaluate them by hand:

    r = x -> x: r x
    r 3

    -> 3: r 3 
    -> 3: 3: 3: ........
    -> [3,3,3,......]

As above, we will need to create infinite new thunks for these recursion. Then I try to evaluate the second one:

    r = x -> let xs = x:xs in xs
    r 3

    -> let xs = 3:xs in xs
    -> xs, according to the definition above: 
    -> 3:xs, where xs = 3:xs
    -> 3:xs:xs, where xs = 3:xs

In the second form the xs appears and can be shared between every places it occurring, so I guess that's why we can only require O(1) spaces rather than O(n). But I'm not sure whether I'm right or not.

BTW: The keyword "shared" comes from the same paper's page 4:

The problem here is that the standard call-by-need evaluation rules are unable to recognize that the function:

f = λdt → integralC (1 + dt) (f dt) 

is the same as:

f = λdt → let x = integralC (1 + dt) x in x

The former de?nition causes work to be repeated in the recursive call to f, whereas in the latter case the computation is shared.

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

It's easiest to understand with pictures:

  • The first version

    repeat x = x : repeat x
    

    creates a chain of (:) constructors ending in a thunk which will replace itself with more constructors as you demand them. Thus, O(n) space.

    a chain

  • The second version

    repeat x = let xs = x : xs in xs
    

    uses let to "tie the knot", creating a single (:) constructor which refers to itself.

    a loop


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

1.4m articles

1.4m replys

5 comments

56.8k users

...