Thanks for looking and posting (I've been on my phone). I think I might have written that code, actually. ;-)
Cheers! Kevin On Sunday, December 27, 2015, Ismael VC <ismael.vc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin I tested in my Win laptop with 0.3.11, 0.4.2, 0.4, 0.5+ also the > same versions in julia box, and the output is deterministically sorted, It > seems this has been the way it works for some time now, then I looked at > the code and it’s indeed sorted (should have done that first! :P ): > > - http://git.io/vEXL9 > > subtypes(m::Module, x::DataType) = sort(collect(_subtypes(m, x)), by=string) > subtypes(x::DataType) = subtypes(Main, x) > > I would expect a very good reason in order to justify a change for this > now. > > > Ismael Venegas Castelló > > *Data Analyst* > > Cel. 044 55 6434 0229 > > ivene...@richit.com.mx > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ivene...@richit.com.mx');> > > Cerro San Francisco 357, C.P. 04200 > > Campestre Churubusco, Coyoacán > > Ciudad de México > > <http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XX43Mx_82W1p1tN-8q-fZWW3LPXXH56dKBHf5NSPJF02?t=https%3A%2F%2Frichit.com.mx%2F&si=4656540167962624&pi=cbed75c9-c818-4cc7-b26c-aa1d7cf16134> > > <https://www.facebook.com/richitsolution> > <http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XX43Mx_82W1p1tN-8q-fZWW3LPXXH56dKBHf5NSPJF02?t=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frichitsolution&si=4656540167962624&pi=cbed75c9-c818-4cc7-b26c-aa1d7cf16134> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','conta...@richit.com.mx');> > > Tel. 6718 1818 > richit.com.mx > > 2015-12-27 18:06 GMT-06:00 Kevin Squire <kevin.squ...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevin.squ...@gmail.com');>>: > >> Ray, thanks for the clarification--makes sense. In fact, for >> introspection code like 'subtypes', performance is probably the wrong >> argument--it's unlikely that it occurs in performance-critical code. I >> think it's really that arrays are just simpler. >> >> One aesthetic change I could imagine would be to have the results sorted >> before returning, which would keep the same data structure, but solve your >> problem, and present the subtypes in a way the user would likely find more >> useful. >> >> Ismael, it might be a little brittle to depend on the current order >> (unless it's always sorted now). >> >> Cheers, >> Kevin >> >> >> On Sunday, December 27, 2015, Ismael Venegas Castelló < >> ismael.vc1...@gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ismael.vc1...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >> >>> You can just do: >>> >>> @assert subtypes(Type) == [DataType, TypeConstructor, Union] >>> >>> I just tested this: >>> >>> julia> @time for i in 1:1000 >>> @assert subtypes(Type) == [DataType, TypeConstructor, Union] >>> end >>> 3.025415 seconds (767.00 k allocations: 224.075 MB, 0.49% gc time) >>> >>> >>> >>> El sábado, 26 de diciembre de 2015, 12:52:51 (UTC-6), Ray Toal escribió: >>>> >>>> I noticed that >>>> >>>> *julia> **subtypes(Type)* >>>> >>>> *3-element Array{Any,1}:* >>>> >>>> * DataType * >>>> >>>> * TypeConstructor* >>>> >>>> * Union * >>>> >>>> and was wondering if there was any significance in the order of the >>>> subtypes. If not, could the method have produced a Set instead? >>>> >>>> >
