From: marcandre-ruby-core@... Date: 2020-09-02T21:15:03+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:99855] [Ruby master Feature#16989] Sets: need ♥️ Issue #16989 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune). Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-14: > Also, does moving Set to core mean rewriting it to C? > I think that would be suboptimal, because every implementation would have to maintain its own native implementation then (or reuse the C extension). I'm not sure, but `Set` is quite small, most of the processing uses `Hash`... > Only moving Set but not SortedSet in core would avoid that issue though, but be somewhat inconsistent. I should have clarified: while I am convinced that `Set` is a basic fundamental class, I have yet to use `SortedSet` or see it in use. I would keep it out of core (in `set`). ---------------------------------------- Feature #16989: Sets: need ������ https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16989#change-87383 * Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: knu (Akinori MUSHA) ---------------------------------------- I am opening a series of feature requests on `Set`, all of them based on this usecase. The main usecase I have in mind is my recent experience with `RuboCop`. I noticed a big number of frozen arrays being used only to later call `include?` on them. This is `O(n)` instead of `O(1)`. Trying to convert them to `Set`s causes major compatibility issues, as well as very frustrating situations and some cases that would make them much less efficient. Because of these incompatibilities, `RuboCop` is in the process of using a custom class based on `Array` with optimized `include?` and `===`. `RuboCop` runs multiple checks on Ruby code. Those checks are called cops. `RuboCop` performance is (IMO) pretty bad and some cops currently are in `O(n^2)` where n is the size of the code being inspected. Even given these extremely inefficient cops, optimizing the 100+ such arrays (most of which are quite small btw) gave a 5% speed boost. RuboCop PRs for reference: https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop-ast/pull/29 https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/pull/8133 My experience tells me that there are many other opportunities to use `Set`s that are missed because `Set`s are not builtin, not known enough and have no shorthand notation. In this issue I'd like to concentrate the discussion on the following request: `Set`s should be core objects, in the same way that `Complex` were not and are now. Some of the upcoming feature requests would be easier (or only possible) to implement were `Set`s builtin. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: