Disentangled arrays in iteration: repl, serialization and shared arrays #15463
Conversation
| @@ -116,16 +114,16 @@ function serialize(s::SerializationState, t::Tuple) | |||
| writetag(s.io, LONGTUPLE_TAG) | |||
| write(s.io, Int32(l)) | |||
| end | |||
| for i = 1:l | |||
| serialize(s, t[i]) | |||
| for e in t | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
e for "element" (of array).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is not a great variable name, since it's also a constant 2.718...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I haven't thought about it. Would you suggest another name which is normally used for elements of a vector in Julia core? (I think I saw x a couple of times)
Since this PR is already merged, I'm going to include the change into the next one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't x more common? elem is quite verbose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's 4 characters... this one-letter habit is harmful, variable names that describe what's going on would be a big improvement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for elem in appears only once in the code while for x in is used a lot. Once people get used to a convention, it can work even if it's not very explicit.
Anyway, this example is so short that either solution is perfectly fine IMHO.
Disentangled arrays in iteration: repl, serialization and shared arrays
|
Many thanks! |
As suggested in #15434, replaced occurrences of
for i=1:length(A)by eitherfor a in Aorfor i in eachindex(A)for flexibility and speed.I omitted 2 kinds of cases:
for i=1:nwherencomes from outside (e.g. length of array being deserialized) or is used in function logic anyway (seedeserialize(s::SerializationState, t::DataType)for example);for i=2:length(A)).Let me know if there's a way to improve these 2 cases as well.
cc: @timholy