Version 2 (modified by chak, 10 years ago) (diff)

--

# Desugaring of array comprehensions

Wadler's desugaring for list comprehensions is not suitable for arrays, as we need to use collective operations to get good parallel code. The build/foldr desugaring, although using collective operations, isn't a good match for how the array operations are implemented. In fact, the naive desugaring from the H98 report is a much better fit:

```(1) [: e | :] 	         = [:e:]
(2) [: e | b, qs :]      = if b then [: e | qs :] else [::]
(3) [: e | p <- a, qs :] = let ok p = [: e | qs :]
ok _ = [::]
in concatMapP ok a
(4) [: e | let ds, qs :] = let ds in [: e | qs :]
(5) [: e | qs | qss   :] =
(6) [: e | (XS, XSS) <- zip [: XS | qs :] [: XSS | qss :] :]
where XS & XSS are the bound variables in qs & qss
```

In particular, `concatMapP f a` essentially implies to apply the lifted version of `f` directly to `a` and then the concat strips of one level of segment descriptors; i.e., both the `concatP` and the `mapP` vanish due to vectorisation.

## Problem with the naive rules

Nevertheless, these rules are not entirely satisfactory. For example, `[:e | x <- a, b:]` turns into

```concatMap (\x -> if b then [:e:] else [::]) a
```

which is a fairly complicated way to perform

```mapP (\x -> e) . filterP (\x -> b) \$ a
```

even when taking vectorisation into account. Under vectorisation, the conditional implies `filterP (\x -> b)`, but adds an expensive, and here useless, merge operation. Maybe these overheads can be optimised away. However, for the moment, we use a desugaring that is based on the above rules, but generates code that should be better suited to array processing.