-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 148
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add more functions implemented with [map]reduce and [map]reducedim #263
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FYI: This possibly wasn't a typo. I had been thinking about this PR for a long time :)
However, we should probably add a
if VERSION < v"0.7"
to support both versions of Julia, or something (or simply support both syntaxes?)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But having to use
Val(D)
inreducedim
andVal{D}
inmapreducedim
seems confusing and inconsistent. I don't see the use ofVal(D)
and::Val{D}
anywhere else in StaticArrays, either. Wouldn't it be better to handle this in a separate PR collectively?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, so what I would like is if StaticArrays used
Val{D}
everywhere in v0.6 andVal(D)
everywhere in v0.7. (I suppose it's OK if the v0.6 version also supportsVal{D}()
, partly to avoid this being a breaking change)If you were to implement that here, that would be awesome (as it seems pertinent to the change already done on this line) - however, let me know if you'd prefer to not do that at the moment, and I'll get to it later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When making this change, I would like to have things like
in
abstractarray.jl
change toas well. Because such a change is outside
mapreduce.jl
, I think creating a separate PR dedicated to::Type{Val{D}}
->::Val{D}
would be cleaner... So yes, I would prefer not to make this change at the moment.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough