> Ok, makes sense. For what it’s worth (I’m very new at Julia, but have
> been using Lisp/Scheme/Clojure for a while now)… In Lisp/Clojure I
> think there’s a preference even for internal function definitions to
> use macros vs eval for the reason that macros modify the source at
> parse time, but
Ok, makes sense. For what it’s worth (I’m very new at Julia, but have been
using Lisp/Scheme/Clojure for a while now)… In Lisp/Clojure I think there’s a
preference even for internal function definitions to use macros vs eval for the
reason that macros modify the source at parse time, but eval wi
Makes sense. So if you want to generate a lot of code in your package
(similar functions or types for example), then you might loop over @eval's,
but if you want your user to also add the same kind of functions, then you
might prefer to make a macro and export that.
On Thursday, September 3, 2
> Out of curiosity, why use `@eval` directly instead of defining a
> macro? (I’m just trying to get a better feel for what’s more Julian.)
Generally:
Use eval when you want to generate code at a particular location.
Conversely, macros are used if you want to provide a way for your users
to generat
To be honest, I also thought the macro-style was preferred, if what you're
doing is actually metaprogramming (like the @endpoint in the blog post).
Here, I think a makefun-function as opposed to @makefun doesn't quite
communicate the nature of makefun. Although, all of this can just be
personal
Out of curiosity, why use `@eval` directly instead of defining a macro? (I’m
just trying to get a better feel for what’s more Julian.)
On September 2, 2015 at 12:44:39, Patrick Kofod Mogensen
(patrick.mogen...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm in a train right now, but yes. Look up metaprogramming in the
I'm in a train right now, but yes. Look up metaprogramming in the docs, or look
at the blog entry on refactoring code in Twitter.jl
http://randyzwitch.com/julia-metaprogramming-refactoring
Hi,
I have a situation where a number of functions differ so little that it
would make sense to define them by a loop.
I don't know if I am using the correct jargon, but here is a small example
to illustrate:
type test
A::Int
B::Int
end
function A(T::test)
T.A
end
fun
