Lazy datatypes in Objective C

问题:

In SML, the following is possible for modelling lazy programming,

// Have a datatype to wrap a computation
datatype 'a susp = Susp of (unit -> 'a)
// A function to hold the computation
fun delay(f ) = Susp(f)

I know that closures can be written using Blocks,

int multiplier = 7;
int (^myBlock)(int) = ^(int num) {
    return num * multiplier;
};

So I think I can use it as a function argument. The next step would be how to use functions with no real arguments ( unit value e.g. in SML fn () =>) and creating lazy datatypes as the one above.

Is this possible or should I be pursuing a different more obvious way ?

The end goal would be to emulate the suspended computation behaviour from SML,

let val x = Susp(fn () => horribleComp(345))
in 
   force(x) + force(x)
end

where force(x) is

fun force (Susp(f)) = f ()

回答1:

Cool question!

You could implement a lazy container in Objective-C as follows (but you probably shouldn't, see below):

typedef id (^SuspBlock)(void);

@interface Susp : NSObjecti
- (id)initWithBlock:(SuspBlock)block;
+ (id)withBlock:(SuspBlock)block;
- (id)force;
@end

// -----

@interface Susp ()
@property (nonatomic, copy) SuspBlock _block;
@end

@implementation Susp
@synthesize _block;

- (id)initWithBlock:(SuspBlock)block {
  self = [super init];
  if (self != nil) {
    self._block = block;
  }

  return self
}

+ (id)withBlock:(SuspBlock)block {
  return [[[self alloc] initWithBlock:bloc] autorelease];
}

- (id)force {
  return self._block();
}

- (void)dealloc {
 self._block = nil;
 [super dealloc];
}

@end

That's a lot of boilerplate, but whatever. Then, you could use it like this:

id x = [Susp withBlock:^{ return someComputation(); }];
id result = [[x force] plus:[x force]];
// assuming the result of your computation has -plus:

But that's all rather silly, since for what you're doing, you really don't need another data type. Just use blocks as your datatype:

typedef id (^SuspVal)(void);
SuspVal x = ^{ return complicatedThing; };
id result = [x() plus:x()];

That's a much more compact, idiomatic way of going about it, and it's what I suggest. Unless you need to add further semantics to your lazy objects that go beyond the basic utilities of blocks, you shouldn't wrap them needlessly.

Cheers!