Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Handle zero on arrays of unions of number types and missings #53602

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 9, 2024
Merged

Handle zero on arrays of unions of number types and missings #53602

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d183b43
Handle zero on arrays of unions of custom number types and missings
oxinabox Mar 5, 2024
fc1aab2
test also the undef case
oxinabox Mar 5, 2024
0fe4977
Update base/abstractarray.jl
vtjnash Mar 8, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions base/abstractarray.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1218,6 +1218,7 @@ end
copymutable(itr) = collect(itr)

zero(x::AbstractArray{T}) where {T<:Number} = fill!(similar(x, typeof(zero(T))), zero(T))
zero(x::AbstractArray{S}) where {S<:Union{Missing, Number}} = fill!(similar(x, typeof(zero(S))), zero(S))
zero(x::AbstractArray) = map(zero, x)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we make this a map_defined(zero, x) where mapdefined is the same as map, but adds an isdefined check in the _collect loop? Seems like we might need to define a isdefined(::Generator) check and then a iterateskip(::Generator) function for that?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could.
My thoughts on that when i initially did this was that it wasn't worth doing.
Because in the greater context of why you are callign zero on a AbstractArray,
you are doing linear algebra.
And other linear algebra operations like + and scalar multiplication, also error when you do them on an array containing any undefined elements.


## iteration support for arrays by iterating over `eachindex` in the array ##
Expand Down
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions test/abstractarray.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1972,6 +1972,16 @@ end

@test zero([[2,2], [3,3,3]]) isa Vector{Vector{Int}}
@test zero([[2,2], [3,3,3]]) == [[0,0], [0, 0, 0]]


@test zero(Union{Float64, Missing}[missing]) == [0.0]
struct CustomNumber <: Number
val::Float64
end
Base.zero(::Type{CustomNumber}) = CustomNumber(0.0)
@test zero([CustomNumber(5.0)]) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
@test zero(Union{CustomNumber, Missing}[missing]) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
Comment on lines +1978 to +1983
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

arguably we do not need this, since the error is replicated with just the Union{Float64, Missing} case above

@test zero(Vector{Union{CustomNumber, Missing}}(undef, 1)) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
end

@testset "`_prechecked_iterate` optimization" begin
Expand Down