I second that I knew a lot more people doing scientific computing with
Matlab/Python.
And of those few that use C++ only a minority knows (and cares) how to
write const aware code...
To your solution, Tim: I think Steve wants to hide this in the function so
that regular arrays can be passed. In your version a Wrapper type has to be
created before calling the function.
Cheers,
Tobi
Am Donnerstag, 14. August 2014 11:54:15 UTC+2 schrieb Tim Holy:
>
> For any algorithm that accepts AbstractArrays, can't you just just define
>
> immutable ReadOnlyArray{T,N,AT<:AbstractArray} <: AbstractArray{T,N}
> data::AT
> end
> ReadOnlyArray{AT<:AbstractArray}(A::AT) =
> ReadOnlyArray{eltype(A),ndims(A),typeof(A)}(A)
>
> and then define the pass-through methods you want to support? That way can
> wrap
> any array type.
>
>
> Also, you could easily create your own package that does this. I don't see
> any
> particular requirement to have it in base.
>
>
> One nit: can you really support your assertion that C++ and Fortran are
> the
> two major languages of scientific computing? In my world, Matlab is used
> by
> about 20x (maybe 50x) as many people as C++. I suspect there's a major
> divide
> depending on field. Science is a big place.
>
> --Tim
>
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 03:19:36 PM vav...@uwaterloo.ca
> <javascript:> wrote:
> > Dear Julia colleagues,
> >
> > In June, I wondered on this newsgroup why Julia lacks an 'inarg'
> > specification for functions. The two major languages used nowadays for
> > scientific programming, namely Fortran and C++, both provide mechanisms
> to
> > declare that a function argument is read-only by the function. Indeed,
> > this was added to Fortran late in its life, so one assumes that there is
> > some bitter experience underlying the decision to include it in Fortran.
> > (Matlab has only inargs, at least until you get to relatively advanced
> > programming techniques, so this is not an issue.)
> >
> > Stefan Karpinski provided a convincing explanation for why inarg and
> outarg
> > specifications have been omitted from the Julia core. Now that I am
> > slightly more familiar with Julia, I would like to make a proposal for
> > inarg that would not require changes to the core language. The proposal
> > would, however, entail substantial additional code, so it is intended
> for
> > some version of Julia in the future.
> >
> > Here is the proposal: suppose fn is a function that takes an array input
> > "a" and wants to declare it to be read-only. Then at the beginning of
> the
> > function before any of the arguments gets used, there would be an
> > assignment statement like this:
> >
> > function fn(a::AbstractArray{Int,1})
> > a = readonly(a)
> >
> > The way this would work is as follows: Julia would have new types,
> mostly
> > invisible to the user, like ReadOnlyArray which would have a setindex!
> > method that would throw an error, Then there would be methods like
> > readonly{T.N}(a::Array{T,N}) that would use 'reinterpret' to change the
> > Array to a ReadOnlyArray. A programmer who wanted to write a function
> that
> > could take either arrays or readonlyarrays as inputs would have to
> declare
> > abstract argument types like DenseArray or AbstractArray. The user
> would
> > not, in general, have to worry about the read-only types; the situation
> > when a user would have to worry about them is if he/she wants to develop
> a
> > read-only version of his/her own data structure that internally uses the
> > standard containers.
> >
> > This proposal has several advantages:
> >
> > (1) The above mechanism enforces the read-only property of a since fn no
> > longer has access to the initial (writeable) definition of a.
> >
> > (2) The above mechanism, if adopted as an idiom, could be easily spotted
> by
> > program analysis tools that could then make optimizations based on the
> fact
> > that a is read-only.
> >
> > (3) There is hardly any performance penalty for this mechanism.
> >
> > But obviously there is one big disadvantage:
> >
> > (1) For each of the standard containers, a new read-only version would
> have
> > to be written. Furthermore, there would also have to be an abstract
> type
> > to serve as a common parent. E.g. there is currently no abstract parent
> > for Set (although there is an open discussion about that matter on
> github).
> >
> > and a second minor disadvantage
> >
> > (2) The enforcement of read-only would probably would not work
> recursively,
> > e.g., if a were an array of arrays. In fact C++ has a similar gap in
> its
> > 'const' mechanism.
> >
> > -- Steve Vavasis
>
>
