I've definitely been meaning to work on integrating this with Sublime-IJulia. Hopefully in the next week or so.
-Jacb On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Adam Smith <swiss.army.engin...@gmail.com> wrote: > This looks awesome. Regarding the Array parameter issue (which I'm really > glad to see in the linter; this issue really tripped me up when learning > Julia), if https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6984 ever finds a > resolution, it would be great to suggest that new syntax in the lint > message. Then if the linter becomes common-place, beginners that have never > heard of type variance will have a path to understanding. > > > On Sunday, September 14, 2014 1:38:50 AM UTC-4, Tony Fong wrote: >> >> That's a good question. They can be used together, obviously. I can >> easily speak for Lint. The key trade-off made in Lint is that it does not >> strive for very in-depth type analysis. The focus is finding dodgy AST, >> where it is located in the source file, and with a bit of explanation >> around issues. The analyses are done recursively in a very small >> neighborhood around each node in the AST, although the locality issue has >> improved somewhat with the new type-tracking ability. The "type guessing >> and tracking" could leverage Typecheck.jl, only possible since about last >> week (with the new features), and it's a very exciting prospect. >> >> Lint already provides functionality to return an array of lint messages >> (from a file, a code snippet, or a module), so it could be used in IDE >> integration I suppose. >> >> Tony >> >> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:08:09 AM UTC+7, Spencer Russell wrote: >>> >>> Any comments on how Lint.jl and @astrieanna's also-awesome TypeCheck.jl >>> relate? Are you two working together, or are there different use cases for >>> the two libraries? >>> >>> >>> peace, >>> s >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Tony Fong <tony.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fellow Julians, >>>> >>>> I think it is time to post an update on Lint.jl >>>> <https://github.com/tonyhffong/Lint.jl>, as it has improved quite a >>>> bit from the initial version I started about 3 months ago. >>>> >>>> Notable new features >>>> >>>> - Local variable type tracking, which enables a range of features, >>>> such as >>>> - Variable type stability warning within a function scope. >>>> - Incompatibility between type assertion and assignment >>>> - Omission of returning the constructed object in a type >>>> constructor >>>> - Check the call signature of a selected set of methods with >>>> collection (push!, append!, etc.) >>>> - More function checks, such as >>>> - repeated arguments >>>> - wrong signatures, e.g. f( x::Array{Number,1} ) >>>> - Mispelled constructor (calls new but the function name doesn't >>>> match the enclosing type) >>>> - Ability to silence lint warning via lintpragma() function, e.g. >>>> - lintpragma( "Ignore unstable type variable [variable name]" ) >>>> - lintpragma( "Ignore Unused [variable name]" ) >>>> >>>> Also, there is now quite a range of test scripts showing sample codes >>>> with lint problems, so it's easy to grep your own lint warnings in that >>>> folder and see a distilled version of the issue. >>>> >>>> Again, please let me know about gaps and false positives. >>>> >>>> Tony >>>> >>> >>>
