Lint v0.1.2 starts to track variables' type locally within a function
declaration. So your case will correctly trigger a lint warning.
Tony
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 4:32:09 AM UTC+7, Wilfred Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 8 September 2014 14:54:50 UTC+1, Tony Fong wrote:
@snotskie looped
On Monday, 8 September 2014 14:54:50 UTC+1, Tony Fong wrote:
@snotskie looped me into this discussion in the context of Lint
I have updated Lint.jl (v0.1.1) to give warnings over
* for-loop when the iterable is just a literal number
* nested vcat, i.e.[[1,2],[3,4]]. Other array formats are
@snotskie looped me into this discussion in the context of Lint
I have updated Lint.jl (v0.1.1) to give warnings over
* for-loop when the iterable is just a literal number
* nested vcat, i.e.[[1,2],[3,4]]. Other array formats are unaffected since
their ASTs are distinct.
Tony
On Monday,
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 6:00:55 AM UTC-5, m...@wilfred.me.uk wrote:
I've been writing a few for loops in Julia and seen a few behaviours that
were surprising to me:
Firstly, it seems that using `in` is converted to `=` at some point in the
parser. This caught me out when looking at a
Thanks for the response.
It's both less bad and weirder than that. Integers are iterable.
Cripes! I've found the relevant mailing list thread you mentioned:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/julia-users/bNDcBnF5hd0/q2GL2UtbmVIJ
. Stefan mentions this decision could be revisited, so I'm
With a sufficiently compelling argument, I imagine it might be conceivable---
there are other equally-fundamental decisions that are viewed as being in-play
during the 0.4 series. You might start by disabling that behavior and then
seeing what aspects, if any, of `make testall` break.
But as an
If you identify scalars with zero-dimensional arrays, then this behavior falls
out naturally. In Julia those *are* different things, but it still makes sense
for them to behave similarly. To make a hard break between a zero-dimensional
array and a scalar seems to me to require some argument –
I haven't run into this problem in Julia, but making too many things iterable
can make it hard to write generalized flatten. I.e. you might want to say
something like if an element is not iterable, push it onto the accumulator;
otherwise, flatten it recursively. Doesn't work like you'd expect
