abstract B
type A<:B
end
type C<:B
end
promote_rule(::Type{A},::Type{C}) = C
@assert promote_type(A,C) == B
Whether I define the promotion_rule or not, the promote_type is always B.
Add `Base.` in front of `promote_rule`.
--Tim
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:23:40 PM Sisyphuss wrote:
> abstract B
>
> type A<:B
> end
>
> type C<:B
> end
>
> promote_rule(::Type{A},::Type{C}) = C
>
> @assert promote_type(A,C) == B
>
> Whether I define the promotion_rule or not, the promote
This modification works, but it fails sometimes:
abstract B{T}
type A{T}<:B{T}
end
type C{T}<:B{T}
end
promote_rule() = 1
promote_rule()
@assert promote_type(A{Real},C{Real}) == B{Real}
Base.promote_rule{T}(::Type{A{T}},::Type{C{T}}) = C{T}
@assert promote_type(A{Real},C{Real}) == B{Real}
@ass
Don't do the first non-base definition.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Sisyphuss wrote:
> This modification works, but it fails sometimes:
>
> abstract B{T}
>
> type A{T}<:B{T}
> end
>
> type C{T}<:B{T}
> end
>
> promote_rule() = 1
> promote_rule()
> @assert promote_type(A{Real},C{Real}) == B
In other words, it "won't fix"?
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 6:41:36 AM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> Don't do the first non-base definition.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Sisyphuss > wrote:
>
>> This modification works, but it fails sometimes:
>>
>> abstract B{T}
>>
>> type A{T}
By doing
promote_rule() = 1
And then
Base.promote_rule{T}(::Type{A{T}},::Type{C{T}}) = C{T}
You are defining two different functions. Only the second one is used by
the promotion system.
The valid code is
abstract B
type A<:B
end
type C<:B
end
Base.promote
Of course, I know how to write the valid code.
But in the interactive environment, if someone accidentally defines the
promote_rule in the non-base way, he will find himself in an
incomprehensible situation.
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 4:15:59 PM UTC+2, Luthaf wrote:
>
> By doing
>
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sisyphuss wrote:
> Of course, I know how to write the valid code.
>
> But in the interactive environment, if someone accidentally defines the
> promote_rule in the non-base way, he will find himself in an
> incomprehensible situation.
There's too many things you
On August 26, 2015 at 21:30:47, Yichao Yu
(yyc1...@gmail.com(mailto:yyc1...@gmail.com)) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sisyphuss wrote:
> > Of course, I know how to write the valid code.
> >
> > But in the interactive environment, if someone accidentally defines the
> > promote_rul
I tried your example. Really, you can break Julia in this way. Luckily,
it's a syntax error.
However, mine is a semantic error, and harder to detect.
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 8:30:47 PM UTC+2, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sisyphuss > wrote:
> > Of course, I k
Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 09:13 +0300, Joshua Ballanco a écrit :
> On August 26, 2015 at 21:30:47, Yichao Yu (yyc1...@gmail.com(mailto:
> yyc1...@gmail.com)) wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sisyphuss wrote:
> > > Of course, I know how to write the valid code.
> > >
> > > But in the in
11 matches
Mail list logo
