Then how would you represent the current Array{FloatingPoint} which can
contain a mix of FloatingPoint types?On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, <[email protected]> wrote: > Shouldn't it behave the opposite way? > > Array{<:FloatingPoint} > > representing an array composed of elements which are subtypes of > FloatingPoint and > > Array{FloatingPoint} > > representing an array composed of elements of the exact same type which is > a subtype of FloatingPoint? > > Before implementing this great idea, a "<:Type" definition should be found > as JeffBezanson stressed on Github. > > Le mardi 27 mai 2014 09:16:02 UTC+2, Toivo Henningsson a écrit : > > Great to hear such positive response :) > I've created an issue for the feature request: https://github.com/ > JuliaLang/julia/issues/6984 > > On Monday, 26 May 2014 22:25:37 UTC+2, Adam Smith wrote: > > +1 to Toivo's idea. I LOVE that suggestion. Combine that with this, and > function declarations can fit on one line again: > typealias Float FloatingPoint > > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 3:33:38 PM UTC-4, Toivo Henningsson wrote: > > Or you can use > > typealias FPArray{T<:FloatingPoint} Array{T} > > foo(a::FPArray, b::FPArray) = a+b > > to get the same effect (foo will still apply when the element types of aand > b are different). > > Perhaps we could introduce a syntax to create such a covariant typealias > on the fly, e.g. > > const FPArray2 = Array{<:FloatingPoint} > > would work the same as FPArray above (though with an anonymous/hidden > type parameter). > Then the example could be written > > foo(a::Array{<:FloatingPoint}, b::Array{<:FloatingPoint}) = a+b > > if you don't want to define the typealias first. > > On Sunday, 25 May 2014 17:44:26 UTC+2, Pierre-Yves Gérardy wrote: > > On Sunday, May 25, 2014 5:10:49 PM UTC+2, James Crist wrote: > > Yeah, that's what I've been using. My issue with it is that the > declarations get long for functions with more than 2 arrays. Was hoping > there was a more concise way. > > > You can us > >
