Use Main instead of @__MODULE__ to hold memoization Dict

[kmsquire]

• @__MODULE__ resolves to Memoize when running this code, which results
  in WARNING: eval into closed module Memoize

Closes #32, Closes #33.

Cc: @cstjean

[cstjean]

It seems odd that we have to call eval at all. Why couldn't we put const $fcachename = ($dicttype)() in the macroexpansion? That's the standard solution AFAIK.

[kmsquire]

It seems odd that we have to call eval at all. Why couldn't we put const $fcachename = ($dicttype)() in the macroexpansion? That's the standard solution AFAIK.

I think the point of the current version is to use the same Dict for different methods of the same function.

But I think the same thing could be accomplished by using a different Dict for different methods of the same function, in which case, yes, what you said should work. (I also don't like the eval.)

(BTW, @cstjean, would you like commit access?)

[kmsquire]

Okay, when changing it to use a different dict for different methods of the same function, the tests at https://github.com/JuliaCollections/Memoize.jl/blob/master/test/runtests.jl#L257-L266 fail.

The original code was put in to test for issue #5, although it does something slightly different.

I'm not sure that that test is something we need to support. Thoughts?

[kmsquire]

Okay, I'm in too much of a hurry. I think The main issue with using separate dictionaries for separate methods of the same function (say, using a gensym to create the dict name) is that overwriting a method doesn't actually overwrite the old dictionary.

[kmsquire]

I'm going to merge this for now, since it's an improvement over the current state, and then create an issue to explore removing eval.

[cstjean]

The main issue with using separate dictionaries for separate methods of the same function (say, using a gensym to create the dict name) is that overwriting a method doesn't actually overwrite the old dictionary.

This can be fixed by using a deterministic symbol for the dict name, like foo__memo__ for foo(x::Int), or foo__Int__memo. I've done it before and it works well.

[cstjean]

I'd be happy to have commit access, although I can't promise much dev time in the short term.

[kmsquire]

The main issue with using separate dictionaries for separate methods of the same function (say, using a gensym to create the dict name) is that overwriting a method doesn't actually overwrite the old dictionary.

This can be fixed by using a deterministic symbol for the dict name, like foo__memo__ for foo(x::Int), or foo__Int__memo. I've done it before and it works well.

Okay, that makes sense.

I'd be happy to have commit access, although I can't promise much dev time in the short term.

Great, and no problem--invite sent.