rune VS immer

Two projects that may be of interest, related to this topic:

- Rune (https://github.com/CeleritasCelery/rune) - A re-implementation of Emacs but in Rust (like Remacs, but actively developed)

- Pimacs (https://github.com/federicotdn/pimacs) - Same, but using Go (created by me, but developed in a very slow pace)

[2] https://github.com/CeleritasCelery/rune/issues/17#issuecomme...

I second this ! I had trouble finding the github link, but here is is https://github.com/CeleritasCelery/rune

> How is anything rooted here? The lifetime changed from 'arena to 'root but I don't see a root being created.

In this example, the Vec has been rooted previously. So pushing an object into the Vec will make it "transitively" rooted (accessible from the root). You would root a struct with the root_struct![1] macro, which works very similar to the root! macro shown in the post.

However you made you realize one error; The rooted `Vec` in the example you pointed is a by value type, but in the implementation you can only get references to rooted structs, so that example needs to be updated.

> But later we see roots not obeying a LIFO order, under "Preventing escapes" where roots are dynamically created and destroyed in an arbitrary order.

Objects are just a copyable wrapper around a pointer, so they are not the part that has the LIFO semantics. inside the root! macro[2] there is a `StackRoot` type that is the actual "root". The object just borrows from that so that is has a 'root lifetime and is valid post gc. The actual root struct is not exposed outside of the macro.

I hope this makes the distinction between "roots" and "objects" clearer. Objects are just pointers to heap data. When we root an object we store the data it points to on the root stack and create a new `StackRoot`. Then we say this object is rooted. But the struct that "does the rooting" is inside the macro and not exposed. Rooting a struct works similarly.

[1] https://github.com/CeleritasCelery/rune/blob/5a616efbed763b9...

Hack on Rune

I've been working on an editor (not text) in C++ and pretty early got into undo/redo. I went down the route of doIt/undoIt for commands but that quickly got old. There was both the extra work needed to implement undo separately for every operation, but also the nagging feeling that the undo operation for some operation wasn't implemented correctly.

In the end, I switched to representing the entire document state using persistent data structures (using the immer library). This vastly simplified things and implementing undo/redo becomes absolutely trivial when using persistent data structures. It's probably not something that is suitable for all domains, but worth checking out.

https://github.com/arximboldi/immer

How does this compare to https://github.com/arximboldi/immer (other than the C/C++ difference)?

Also, it's my understanding that, in practice, persistent data structures require a garbage collector in order to handle deallocation when used in a general-purpose way. How does your implementation handle that?

You might be interested in ewig and immer by Juan Pedro Bolivar Puente:

https://github.com/arximboldi/ewig

https://github.com/arximboldi/immer

See the author instantly opening a ~1GB text file with async loading, paging through, copying/pasting, and undoing/redoing in their prototype “ewig” text editor about 27 minutes into their talk here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPhpelUfu8Q

It’s backed by a “vector of vectors” data structure called a relaxed radix balanced tree:

https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/169879/files/RMTrees.pdf

That original paper has seen lots of attention and attempts at performance improvements, such as:

https://hypirion.com/musings/thesis

https://github.com/hyPiRion/c-rrb

You’re absolutely right, however people have been putting in the “extra efforts” required for efficiency. Check out immer if you’re interested.

The C++ immer library: https://github.com/arximboldi/immer

For C++ check this one out - https://github.com/arximboldi/immer

Yeah I agree that I should link that wikipedia page in the docs, I'll do that as soon as I get a chance. immer (https://github.com/arximboldi/immer) also links that page in its docs, for the exact same reason I'm sure. Interestingly, there is a lot of overlap between persistent data structures in the functional programming sense and persistent data structures in the persisted-to-disk sense because persistent data structures in the FP sense are one of the best ways to guarantee atomic updates and safe failure recovery in a persisted-to-disk system! Btrfs and ZFS, as well as many databases, are at their core basically just copy-on-write B+ trees.

I’ve never tried it, but I love the idea of implementing editor scene state using immutable data structures like https://github.com/arximboldi/immer With that, every edit would append a new node to a list of scene states. Undo/redo becomes iterating your view of the scene up and down through that list. Can’t screw up an undo function if there’s never any work to do :P

I have! I think it's related to the C++ immer library which I used several years ago in Vortex. It's kinda like the previous generation of ValueScript. 🍻