From: Jim Apple (japple_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-12 19:03:49
Beman Dawes wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, since I've no experience with the caching
> of math function results, but do you propose to build memoization on top
> of a general cache facility?
By cache facility, I assume you mean some sort of associative container.
If instead you're talking about serialization/persistence, then I
agree that memoization would benefit from that. Over different
invocations of an application, a function becomes more lookup and less
function? Faboo! Do I think this is necessary for memoization to be very
Now, assuming you're talking about associative containers
The present prototype takes a type parameter memo_wrap, that, in turn,
takes a type parameter. At present, memo_wrap is specialized only for
map, but a specialization for std::unordered_set would be good, and the
interface would support a container that optimizes access for most
> If so, would it make sense to work on the cache facility first?
First? I don't think so. It yields big advantages for simple containers
Should a cache facility be developed? I DO think so. It would certainly
yeild advantages to memoization
> Also, would there be any benefit in specifying the cache facility as a
> memoization policy, so that different caches with different performance
> characteristics could be supplied according to user needs?
> I do have considerable experience with the caching of the results of
> search function, and have seen or read about various situations:
These results would be very helpful if built into different cache types.
These benefits would show up in memoization mostly for non-recursive
> Given all that variability, policy-based caching might be very attractive.
I agree strongly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk