hamster 0.2.7 → 0.2.8

data/History.rdoc

@@ -1,3 +1,21 @@
+=== 0.2.8 / 2010-02-10
+
+* Implement Set#exclusion (aliased as #^) as equivalent to ((a | b) - (a & b)).
+
+* Implement Set#subset?
+
+* Implement Set#superset?
+
+* Implement Set#difference (aliased as #diff, #subtract, and #-).
+
+* Implement Set#intersection (aliased as #intersect and #&).
+
+* Implement Set#union (aliased as #| and #+).
+
+* Implement Set#union (aliased as #| and #+).
+
+* Remove Hash#[]= as its useless.
+
 === 0.2.7 / 2010-02-08
 
 * Fixed bug with Hamster.interval (and Hamster.range) not handling Strings correctly.

data/README.rdoc

@@ -1,113 +1,93 @@
 = Hamster - Efficient, Immutable, Thread-Safe Collection classes for Ruby
 
-Hamster started out as an implementation of Hash Array Mapped Trees (HAMT) for Ruby (see http://lamp.epfl.ch/papers/idealhashtrees.pdf) and has since expanded to include implementations of other Persistent Data Structures (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure) such as Sets, Lists, Stacks, etc.
+  GitHub:     http://github.com/harukizaemon/bundler
+  Gemcutter:  http://gemcutter/gems/hamster
+  email:      haruki.zaemon@gmail.com
+  IRC:        #haruki_zaemon on freenode
 
-== What are persistent data structures?
+== Introduction
 
-Persistent data structures have a really neat property: very efficient copy-on-write operations. That allows you to create immutable data-structures that only need copying when something changes. For example:
+Hamster started out as an implementation of Hash Array Mapped Trees (HAMT) for Ruby (see http://lamp.epfl.ch/papers/idealhashtrees.pdf) and has since expanded to include implementations of other Persistent Data Structures (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure) including Set, List, and Stack.
 
-  hash = Hamster.hash
+Hamster collections are immutable. Whenever you modify a Hamster collection, the original is preserved and a modified copy is returned. This makes them inherently thread-safe and sharable. (For an interesting perspective on why immutability itself is inherently a good thing, you might like to take a look at Matthias Felleisen's Function Objects presentation: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Presentations/ecoop2004.pdf)
 
-  hash.put("Name", "Simon")
-  hash.has_key?("Name")     # => false
-  hash.get("Name")          # => nil
+Hamster collection classes remain space efficient by making use of some very well understood and very simple techniques that enable sharing between copies.
 
-== Double Huh? That's not much use!
+Hamster collections are almost always closed under a given operation. That is, whereas Ruby's collection methods always return arrays, Hamster collections will return an instance of the same class wherever possible.
 
-Whoops! Unlike Ruby's standard library, each call to <tt>Hamster::hash#put</tt> creates an efficient copy containing the modifications, leaving the original unmodified. Thus, all Hamster classes follow Command-Query-Seperation (see http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CommandQuerySeparation.html) and return the modified copy of themselves after any mutating operation. Let's try that again:
+And lastly, Hamster lists are lazy -- where Ruby's language constructs permit -- making it possible to, among other things, process "infinitely large" lists. (Note: Ruby 1.9 supports a form of laziness using Enumerator however they're implemented using Fibers which unfortunately can't be shared across threads.)
 
-  original = Hamster.hash
-  copy = original.put("Name", "Simon")
+== Installation
 
-  original.get("Name")             # => nil
-  copy.get("Name")                 # => "Simon"
+Hamster is distributed as a gem via gemcutter (http://gemcutter.org/gems/hamster) or as source via GitHub (http://github.com/harukizaemon/hamster).
 
-The same goes for <tt>#remove</tt>:
+Installation via the gem is easy:
 
-  original = Hamster.hash
-  original = original.put("Name", "Simon")
-  copy = hash.remove("Name")
+  > gem install hamster
 
-  original.get("Name")  # => Simon
-  copy.get("Name")      # => nil
+Once installed, all that remains is to make the collection classes available in your code:
 
-== Oh, I get it. Cool. But I still don't understand why I should care?
+  require 'hamster'
 
-As mentioned earlier, persistent data structures perform a copy whenever they are modified meaning there is never any chance that two threads could be modifying the same instance at any one time. And, because they are very efficient copies, you don't need to worry about using up gobs of memory in the process. Moreover, because they're immutable, you can pass them around between objects, methods, and functions and never worry about data corruption; no more defensive calls to <tt>collection.dup</tt>!
+If you prefer, you can instead require individual classes as necessary:
 
-For an interesting read on why immutability is a good thing, take a look at Matthias Felleisen's Function Objects presnetation (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Presentations/ecoop2004.pdf).
+  require 'hamster/hash'
+  require 'hamster/set'
+  require 'hamster/list'
+  require 'hamster/stack'
 
-== OK, that sounds mildly interesting. What's the downside--there's always a downside?
+== Examples
 
-There's a potential performance hit when compared with MRI's built-in, native, hand-crafted C-code implementation of <tt>Hash</tt>. For example:
+Most Hamster classes support an API that resembles their standard library counterpart with the caveat that any modification returns a new instance. What follows are some simple examples to help illustrate this point.
 
-  hash = Hamster.hash
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash = hash.put(i, i) }  # => 0.05s
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash.get(i) }  # => 0.008s
+=== Hash
 
-versus
+Constructing a Hamster Hash is almost as simple as a regular one:
 
-  hash = {}
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] = i }  # => 0.004s
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] }  # => 0.001s
+  simon = Hamster.hash(:name => "Simon", :gender => :male)  # => {:name => "Simon", :gender => :male}
 
-== That seems pretty bad?
+Accessing the contents will be familiar to you:
 
-Well, yes and no. The previous comparison wasn't really fair. Sure, if all you want to do is replace your existing uses of <tt>Hash</tt> in single-threaded environments then don't even bother. However, if you need something that can be used efficiently in concurrent environments where multiple threads are accessing--reading AND writing--the contents things get much better.
+  simon[:name]          # => "Simon"
+  simon.get(:gender)    # => :male
 
-== Do you have a better example?
+Updating the contents is a little different than you are used to:
 
-A more realistic comparison might look like:
+  james = simon.put(:name, "James")   # => {:name => "James", :gender => :male}
+  simon                               # => {:name => "Simon", :gender => :male}
+  james[:name]                        # => "James"
+  simon[:name]                        # => "Simon"
 
-  hash = Hamster.hash
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash = hash.put(i, i) }  # => 0.05s
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash.get(i) }  # => 0.008s
+As you can see, updating the hash returned a copy leaving the original intact. Similarly, deleting a key returns yet another copy:
 
-versus
+  male = simon.delete(:name)    # => {:gender => :male}
+  simon                         # => {:name => "Simon", :gender => :male}
+  male.has_key?(:name)          # => false
+  simon.has_key?(:name)         # => true
 
-  hash = {}
-  (1..10000).each { |i|
-    hash = hash.dup
-    hash[i] = i
-  } # => 19.8s
+Hamster's hash doesn't provide an assignment (<tt>#[]=</tt>) method. The reason for this is simple yet irritating: Ruby assignment methods always return the assigned value, no matter what the method itself returns. For example:
 
-  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] }  # => 0.001s
+  {}[:name] = "Simon"   # => "Simon"
 
-Impressive huh? What's even better is--or worse depending on your perspective--is that after all that, the native <tt>Hash</tt> version still isn't thread-safe and still requires some synchronisation around it slowing it down even further.
+Because of this, the returned copy would be lost thus making the construct useless.
 
-The <tt>Hamster::Hash</tt> version on the other hand was unchanged from the original whilst remaining inherently thread-safe, and 3 orders of magnitude faster.
+=== Set
 
-== Sure, but as you say, you still need synchronisation so why bother with the copying?
+=== List
 
-Well, I could show you one but I'd have to re-write--or at least wrap--most <tt>Hash</tt> methods to make it generic, or at least write some application-specific code that synchronised using a <tt>Mutex</tt> and ... well ... it's hard, I always make mistakes, I always end up with weird edge cases and race conditions so, I'll leave that as an exercise for you :)
-
-And don't forget that even if threading isn't a concern for you, the safety provided by immutability is worth it, not to mention the lazy implementations.
-
-== But doesn't Ruby 1.9 now support lazy behaviour using Enumerators?
-
-Sure does but they're implemented using Fibers which can't be shared across threads. All Hamster types are inherently thread-safe and sharable.
-
-Moreover, Ruby's Enumerable module always returns an array -- calling <tt>Set#filter</tt> returns an <tt>Array</tt> -- whereas Hamster classes are almost always closed under a given operation. That is, Calling <tt>#filter</tt> on <tt>Set</tt> will return a <tt>Set</tt>, on a <tt>List</tt> will return a <tt>List</tt>, etc.
-
-== So, you mentioned Sets, Lists, and Stacks?
-
-Indeed I did.
-
-=== Lists
-
-Lists have a head--the value of the item at the head of the list--and a tail--containing the remaining items. For example:
+Lists have a head -- the value of the item at the head of the list -- and a tail -- containing the remaining items. For example:
 
   list = Hamster.list(1, 2, 3)
 
   list.head    # => 1
   list.tail    # => Hamster.list(2, 3)
 
-To add to a list you use <tt>#cons</tt>:
+To add to a list, you use <tt>#cons</tt>:
 
   original = Hamster.list(1, 2, 3)
   copy = original.cons(0)           # => Hamster.list(0, 1, 2, 3)
 
-Notice how modifying a list actually returns a new list. That's because Hamster lists are immutable. Thankfully, just like Hamster <tt>Set</tt> and <tt>Hash</tt>, they're also very efficient at making copies!
+Notice how modifying a list actually returns a new list. That's because Hamster lists are immutable. Thankfully, just like Hamster Set and Hash, they're also very efficient at making copies!
 
 Lists are, where possible, lazy. That is, they try to defer processing items until absolutely necessary. For example, given a crude function to detect prime numbers:
 
@@ -130,14 +110,18 @@ Besides <tt>Hamster.list</tt> there are other ways to construct lists:
 
 <tt>Hamster.stream { ... }</tt> allows you to creates infinite lists. Each time a new value is required, the supplied block is called. For example, to generate a list of integers you could do:
 
-  count = 1
+  count = 0
   integers = Hamster.stream { count += 1 }
 
 <tt>Hamster.repeat(x)</tt> creates an infinite list with x the value for every element.
 
 <tt>Hamster.replicate(n, x)</tt> creates a list of size n with x the value for every element.
 
-<tt>Hamster.iterate(x) { ... }</tt> creates an infinite list where the first item is calculated by applying the block on the initial argument, the second item by applying the function on the previous result and so on. For example, a simpler way to generate a list of integers would be:
+<tt>Hamster.iterate(x) { |x| ... }</tt> creates an infinite list where the first item is calculated by applying the block on the initial argument, the second item by applying the function on the previous result and so on. For example, a simpler way to generate a list of integers would be:
+
+  integers = Hamster.iterate(1) { |i| i + 1 }
+
+or even more succinctly:
 
   integers = Hamster.iterate(1, &:succ)
 
@@ -167,24 +151,68 @@ Unfortunately, though the second example reads nicely, it takes around 13 second
 
 How is this even possible? It's possible because <tt>IO#to_list</tt> creates a lazy list whereby each line is only ever read and processed as needed, in effect converting it to the first example without all the syntactic, imperative, noise.
 
-=== Stacks
-
-=== Sets
+=== Stack
 
 == Disclaimer
 
 Hamster started out as a spike to prove a point and has since morphed into something I actually use. My primary concern has been to round out the functionality with good test coverage and clean, readable code.
 
-Performance is pretty good--especially with lazy lists--but there are some things which may blow the stack due to a lack of Tail-Call-Optimisation in Ruby.
+Performance is pretty good -- especially with lazy lists -- but there are some things which may blow the stack due to a lack of Tail-Call-Optimisation in Ruby.
 
-Documentation is sparse but I've tried as best I can to write specs that read as documentation. I've also tried to alias methods as their <tt>Enumerable</tt> equivalents where possible to make it easier for people to migrate code.
+Documentation is sparse but I've tried as best I can to write specs that read as documentation. I've also tried to alias methods as their <tt>Enumerable</tt> equivalents where possible to ease code migration.
 
-== Installation
+== Reporting bugs
 
-Hamster is distributed as a gem via gemcutter (http://gemcutter.org/gems/hamster) or as source via GitHub (http://github.com/harukizaemon/hamster).
+Please report all bugs on the GitHub issue tracker located at: http://github.com/harukizaemon/hamster/issues
 
-Installation via the gem is easy:
+== But I still don't understand why I should care?
 
-  > gem install hamster
+As mentioned earlier, persistent data structures perform a copy whenever they are modified meaning there is never any chance that two threads could be modifying the same instance at any one time. And, because they are very efficient copies, you don't need to worry about using up gobs of memory in the process.
+
+Even if threading isn't a concern, because they're immutable, you can pass them around between objects, methods, and functions in the same thread and never worry about data corruption; no more defensive calls to <tt>#dup</tt>!
+
+=== OK, that sounds mildly interesting. What's the downside--there's always a downside?
+
+There's a potential performance hit when compared with MRI's built-in, native, hand-crafted C-code implementation of Hash. For example:
+
+  hash = Hamster.hash
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash = hash.put(i, i) }   # => 0.05s
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash.get(i) }             # => 0.008s
+
+versus
+
+  hash = {}
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] = i }   # => 0.004s
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] }       # => 0.001s
+
+=== That seems pretty bad?
+
+Well, yes and no. The previous comparison wasn't really fair. Sure, if all you want to do is replace your existing uses of Hash in single-threaded environments then don't even bother. However, if you need something that can be used efficiently in concurrent environments where multiple threads are accessing--reading AND writing--the contents things get much better.
+
+=== Do you have a better example?
+
+A more realistic comparison might look like:
+
+  hash = Hamster.hash
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash = hash.put(i, i) }   # => 0.05s
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash.get(i) }             # => 0.008s
+
+versus
+
+  hash = {}
+  (1..10000).each { |i|
+    hash = hash.dup
+    hash[i] = i
+  }                                 # => 19.8s
+
+  (1..10000).each { |i| hash[i] }   # => 0.001s
+
+What's even better -- or worse depending on your perspective -- is that after all that, the native Hash version still isn't thread-safe and still requires some synchronisation around it slowing it down even further and.
+
+The Hamster version on the other hand was unchanged from the original whilst remaining inherently thread-safe, and 3 orders of magnitude faster.
+
+=== Sure, but as you say, you still need synchronisation so why bother with the copying?
+
+Well, I could show you one but I'd have to re-write/wrap most Hash methods to make them generic, or at the very least write some application-specific code that synchronised using a <tt>Mutex</tt> and ... well ... it's hard, I always make mistakes, I always end up with weird edge cases and race conditions so, I'll leave that as an exercise for you :)
 
-I'll leave it up to you to install from source :)
+And don't forget that even if threading isn't a concern for you, the safety provided by immutability alone is worth it, not to mention the lazy implementations.

data/lib/hamster/hash.rb

@@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ module Hamster
     def put(key, value)
       self.class.new(@trie.put(key, value))
     end
-    def_delegator :self, :put, :[]=
 
     def delete(key)
       trie = @trie.delete(key)

data/lib/hamster/set.rb

@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ module Hamster
 
     def delete(item)
       trie = @trie.delete(item)
-      if trie.equal?(@trie)
-        self
-      else
-        self.class.new(trie)
-      end
+      return self if trie.equal?(@trie)
+      self.class.new(trie)
     end
 
     def each
@@ -75,13 +72,9 @@ module Hamster
     def filter
       return self unless block_given?
       trie = @trie.filter { |entry| yield(entry.key) }
-      if trie.equal?(@trie)
-        self
-      elsif trie.empty?
-        EmptySet
-      else
-        self.class.new(trie)
-      end
+      return self if trie.equal?(@trie)
+      return EmptySet if trie.empty?
+      self.class.new(trie)
     end
     def_delegator :self, :filter, :select
     def_delegator :self, :filter, :find_all
@@ -164,6 +157,47 @@ module Hamster
       to_a.join(sep)
     end
 
+    def union(other)
+      trie = other.reduce(@trie) do |trie, item|
+        next trie if trie.has_key?(item)
+        trie.put(item, nil)
+      end
+      return self if trie.equal?(@trie)
+      self.class.new(trie)
+    end
+    def_delegator :self, :union, :|
+    def_delegator :self, :union, :+
+
+    def intersection(other)
+      trie = @trie.filter { |entry| other.include?(entry.key) }
+      return self if trie.equal?(@trie)
+      self.class.new(trie)
+    end
+    def_delegator :self, :intersection, :intersect
+    def_delegator :self, :intersection, :&
+
+    def difference(other)
+      trie = @trie.filter { |entry| !other.include?(entry.key) }
+      return self if trie.equal?(@trie)
+      self.class.new(trie)
+    end
+    def_delegator :self, :difference, :diff
+    def_delegator :self, :difference, :subtract
+    def_delegator :self, :difference, :-
+
+    def exclusion(other)
+      ((self | other) - (self & other))
+    end
+    def_delegator :self, :exclusion, :^
+
+    def subset?(other)
+      all? { |item| other.include?(item) }
+    end
+
+    def superset?(other)
+      other.subset?(self)
+    end
+
     def compact
       remove(&:nil?)
     end

data/lib/hamster/version.rb

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 module Hamster
 
-  VERSION = "0.2.7".freeze
+  VERSION = "0.2.8".freeze
 
 end

data/spec/hamster/core_ext/array_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/core_ext/enumerable'
 

data/spec/hamster/core_ext/enumerable_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/core_ext/enumerable'
 

data/spec/hamster/core_ext/io_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/core_ext/io'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/all_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/any_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/construction_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/copying_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/delete_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/each_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/empty_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'
 

data/spec/hamster/hash/eql_spec.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-require File.expand_path('../../spec_helper', File.dirname(__FILE__))
+require File.expand_path('../../../spec_helper', __FILE__)
 
 require 'hamster/hash'