hang on... what does onlyleaves do? when true should the results be a subset of the the results when it's false? they are not, in the examples in the doc. :o(
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 19:25:06 UTC-3, andrew cooke wrote: > > this is great. from just looking at the example in the docs i can see > i've missed a couple of methods! thanks. > > On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 15:54:07 UTC-3, Leah Hanson wrote: >> >> The "% coverage" part is done. You can see the documentation at >> https://github.com/astrieanna/TypeCheck.jl#methodswithdescendantstdatatypeonlyleavesboolfalselimint10(anchor >> in the README). Please try it out and let me know whether it's >> helpful. (Note that abstract types are included by default; using >> onlyleaves=true to get your requested behavior.) >> >> Usage statistics are definitely harder, but only because finding uses of >> a function in general is harder. I'll think about that a bit more; >> check_method_calls might have some of the needed infrastructure of that. >> >> Comparing types could be accomplished with a wrapper on the new >> methodswithdescendants function; I can add that. >> >> -- Leah >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:26 PM, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> sweet. i'd like to see something like "% coverage". for Number, for >>> example, what % of concrete types have abs() defined? >>> >>> another useful statistic, which might not be possible, is across how >>> many modules is a function used - for example, which operation on Number >>> occurs in most modules? which are used only in one module? >>> >>> it would also be nice if you could compare types - what functions does >>> Integer (or sub types) have, that my type does not? >>> >>> and ponies! >>> >>> cheers, andrew >>> >>> ps i just looked at TypeCheck. check_loop_types is going to be sooo >>> useful.... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:13:07 UTC-3, Leah Hanson wrote: >>> >>>> I'm planning to add a "which methods are defined for subtypes of this >>>> type" function to TypeCheck.jl this week. If there's any specific behavior >>>> you want it to have, let me know. :) >>>> >>>> -- Leah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Moon <dave...@alum.mit.edu>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:14:37 AM UTC-5, David Moon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The advantage of making it an explicit concept in the language, >>>>>> rather than just defining a method that signals an error, is that it can >>>>>> be >>>>>> checked at compile time. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In Julia, compile time is load time. Specifically, after evaluating a >>>>> top-level expression (which may have loaded a whole lot of files) check >>>>> each newly defined datatype or bitstype to see if there are any required >>>>> methods that involve that type or its supertypes. If so, check if an >>>>> instance of the newly defined type would have all the required methods >>>>> applicable to it in the appropriate argument position. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
