Hi all! Is there any way to avoid using Base.invokelatest or GeneralizedGenerated.mk_function in an example of the following type. This is a minimal working example: function main(vars, val) f_ex = build_function_expr(vars, val) f = eval(f_ex) # f = GeneralizedGenerated.mk_function(@__MODUL…

[image] rdeits: However, you can avoid most of the performance overhead of invokelatest by calling it on the solver That is great advice! Thank you very much! [image] rdeits: then you have to either (1) return to the top-level or (2) use invokelatest . Just to clarify, is it possible …

[image] rvignolo: Just to clarify, is it possible to return to the top level in the examples we posted? It’s possible, but it would make for an awkward API. For example, you can do: julia> expr = eval(:(x -> x + 1)) #11 (generic function with 1 method) # We're back to the top-level here, so…

[image] rdeits: It’s possible, but it would make for an awkward API. Yeah, I was afraid that would be the case, I just wanted to be sure. So, again, thank you very much for your help. I have already implemented your advice and got a 2x gain in performance and reduced allocations by the same …

[image] rdeits: if you want to use something you’ve created through eval() , then you have to either (1) return to the top-level or (2) use invokelatest Or (3) use GeneralizedGenerated. This is somewhat the textbook use case for it. To make the function pure you need to avoid closures in ther…

[image] rvignolo: build_function_expr Why are you building functions from expressions at runtime in the first place? Except for very specialized circumstances (e.g. writing an interpreter shell), this is usually not the right approach … usually you should be passing around functions, not exp…

[image] ChrisRackauckas: Or (3) use GeneralizedGenerated. This is somewhat the textbook use case for it. To make the function pure you need to avoid closures in there and it should be good I am using closures in these functions because they receive the solution of an SDE System for a given tr…

[image] stevengj: Why are you building functions from expressions at runtime in the first place? Except for very specialized circumstances (e.g. writing an interpreter shell), this is usually not the right approach … usually you should be passing around functions, not expressions. Yes, I am a…

If you’re using a macro already, why don’t you just build the functions in the macro output? Then there’s no eval required. As a dumb example: macro foo(input_block) f_template = quote (u_n, p) -> begin X = t -> un(t; idxs = 1) T = p.T K = p.K …

[image] Mason: If you’re using a macro already, why don’t you just build the functions in the macro output? Then there’s no eval required. Because there is one macro for describing the equations of a model and there is another separated macro where I describe the parameters involved in the eq…

Does (u_n, p) -> begin f(t) = un(t; idxs = 1) T = p.T K = p.K # the following block is given by the user (X(T) > K) * X(T) end work? I thought closures in GG were fixed though, @thautwarm

Can you avoid using Base.invokelatest in this example?

General Usage

mbauman Split this topic July 24, 2022, 12:24am 22

A post was split to a new topic: How can a macro create functions that are handled at compile time?

Topic		Replies	Views
Codegen woes Performance	30	2414	August 27, 2019
Dynamically Create a Function - Initial Idea with eval failed due to World Age Issue General Usage metaprogramming , eval , runtimegeneratedfunc , world_age	19	1549	October 28, 2020
Generate functions inside a function from string Performance question	35	4197	July 13, 2018
World age problem General Usage question , world_age	20	3237	August 21, 2019
How do I create a function from an expression General Usage question	23	4697	July 13, 2018

Can you avoid using Base.invokelatest in this example?

Related topics