[Rd] R's copying of arguments (Re: Julia)

From: oliver <oliver_at_first.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:35:22 +0100


regarding the copying issue,
I would like to point to the

"Writing R-Extensions" documentation.

There it is mentio9ned, that functions of extensions that use the .C interface normally do get their arguments pre-copied...

In section 5.2:

  "There can be up to 65 further arguments giving R objects to be   passed to compiled code. Normally these are copied before being   passed in, and copied again to an R list object when the compiled   code returns."

But for the .Call and .Extension interfaces this is NOT the case.

In section 5.9:
  "The .Call and .External interfaces allow much more control, but   they also impose much greater responsibilities so need to be used   with care. Neither .Call nor .External copy their arguments. You   should treat arguments you receive through these interfaces as   read-only."

Why is read-only preferred?

Please, see the discussion in section 5.9.10.

It's mentioned there, that a copy of an object in the R-language not necessarily doies a real copy of that object, but instead of this, just a "rerference" to the real data is created (two names referring to one bulk of data). That's typical functional programming: not a variable, but a name (and possibly more than one name) bound to an object.

Of course, if yo change the orgiginal named value, when there would be no copy of it, before changing it, then both names would refer to the changed data.
of course that is not, what is wanted.

But what you also can see in section 5.9.10 is, that there already is a mechanism (reference counting) that allows to distinguish between unnamed and named object.

So, this is directly adressing the points you have mentioned in your examples.

So, at least in principial, R allows to do in-place modifications of object with the .Call interface.

You seem to refer to the .C interface, and I had explored the .Call interface. That's the reason why you may insist on "it's copyied always" and I wondered, what you were talking about, because the .Call interface allowed me rather C-like raw style of programming (and the user of it to decide, if copying will be done or not).

The mechanism to descide, if copying should be done or not, also is mentioined in section 5.9.10: NAMED and SET_NAMED macros. with NAMED you can get the number of references.

But later in that section it is mentioned, that - at least for now - NAMED always returns the value 2.

  "Currently all arguments to a .Call call will have NAMED set to 2,   and so users must assume that they need to be duplicated before   alteration."

               (section 5.9.10, last sentence)

So, the in-place modification can be done already with the .Call intefcae for example. But the decision if it is safe or not is not supported at the moment.

So the situation is somewhere between: "it is possible" and "R does not support a safe decision if, what is possible, also can be recommended".
At the moment R rather deprecates in-place modification by default (the save way, and I agree with this default).

But it's not true, that R in general copies arguments.

But this seems to be true for the .C interface.

Maybe a lot of performance-/memory-problems can be solved by rewriting already existing packages, by providing them via .Call instead of .C.



On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:44:49PM +0000, William Dunlap wrote:
> S (and its derivatives and successors) promises that functions
> will not change their arguments, so in an expression like
> val <- func(arg)
> you know that arg will not be changed. You can
> do that by having func copy arg before doing anything,
> but that uses space and time that you want to conserve.
> If arg is not a named item in any environment then it
> should be fine to write over the original because there
> is no way the caller can detect that shortcut. E.g., in
> cx <- cos(runif(n))
> the cos function does not need to allocate new space for
> its output, it can just write over its input because, without
> a name attached to it, the caller has no way of looking
> at what runif(n) returned. If you did
> x <- runif(n)
> cx <- cos(x)
> then cos would have to allocate new space for its output
> because overwriting its input would affect a subsequent
> sum(x)
> I suppose that end-users and function-writers could learn
> to live with having to decide when to copy, but not having
> to make that decision makes S more pleasant (and safer) to use.
> I think that is a major reason that people are able to
> share S code so easily.
> Bill Dunlap
> Spotfire, TIBCO Software
> wdunlap tibco.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oliver [mailto:oliver_at_first.in-berlin.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:12 AM
> > To: William Dunlap
> > Cc: Hervé Pagès; R-devel
> > Subject: Re: [Rd] Julia
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:35:32AM +0000, William Dunlap wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I find R's (& S+'s & S's) copy-on-write-if-not-copying-would-be-discoverable-
> > > by-the-uer machanism for giving the allusion of pass-by-value a good way
> > > to structure the contract between the function writer and the function user.
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > Can you elaborate more on this,
> > especially on the ...-...-...-if-not-copying-would-be-discoverable-by-the-uer
> > stuff?
> >
> > What do you mean with discoverability of not-copying?
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Oliver

R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat 17 Mar 2012 - 15:38:23 GMT

This quarter's messages: by month, or sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

All messages

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Tue 20 Mar 2012 - 19:20:34 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive