Exactly. But we generally move over to Array{Float64} before calling OpenBLAS
anyway, so that's not necessarily a fatal problem. Just something that needs to
be approached with caution.
-- John
On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Johan Sigfrids <johan.sigfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would a Array{Nullable{Float64}} mean that you couldn't use OpenBLAS
> algorithms on the data because the bool value is laid out interleaved with
> the data?
>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:16:19 PM UTC+3, John Myles White wrote:
> Array{Nullable{Float64}} is very appealing, but it's not equivalent to
> DataArray{Float64} because of how things get stored in memory. I'd like to
> stick with DataArray{Float64} for a while, since it makes it easier to apply
> existing array functions. Getting rid of DataArray is very tempting, though.
>
> -- John
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:37 AM, David Anthoff <ant...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Nullable (I have a .Net background). Data{T} seems like a very
>> generic name for a very specific concept. For people that have not read the
>> doc and would come across code that used this construct, the name wouldn’t
>> give the slightest hint what this might be about, whereas something like
>> Nullable would probably point people at least in the right direction (also,
>> much more googleable). I’m with your dislike for the name DataArray, again I
>> think that is a generic name that doesn’t point people to what it might
>> mean. Maybe better to rename DataArray to something like NullableArray? I
>> guess the really nice syntax would just be that Array{Nullable{Float64}}
>> would end up creating the same thing as a DataArray right now, but as far as
>> I understand the type system that wouldn’t work, right?
>>
>> Cheers, David
>>
>> From: julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ju...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
>> John Myles White
>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:06 AM
>> To: julia...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [julia-users] OptionTypes.jl
>>
>> Yeah, that's a good idea. I'd kind of like to call this something like
>> Nullable since I'm not a huge fan of the name DataArray, but consistency is
>> an important thing to maintain.
>>
>> -- John
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Bob Nnamtrop <bob.nn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What about naming it the Data{T} type instead of Option{T} (or Optional{T}).
>> Seems to fit in the DataArray{T} theme better and gives me a better idea
>> what it is from the name (at least once one knows about DataArrays).
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Myles White <johnmyl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Julia, I think your naming suggestions will be more impactful if you're
>> careful to describe your opinions in terms of your subjective preferences,
>> rather than in terms of objective facts. Describing something as "more
>> intuitive" isn't a very effective rhetorical strategy if others don't
>> already share your intuitions. Rather than assert that X is more intuitive,
>> it would be great to demonstrate why your preferred name could be more
>> intuitive.
>>
>> Just my two cents about effective argumentation strategies.
>>
>> -- John
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Júlio Hoffimann <julio.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> One suggestion is to have it named as the more intuitive Optional{T}.
>>
>> Júlio.
>>
>
