Good question, I would be interested in the answer myself. If the tips
indicate the explicit type dependency is preferred, then I guess that for
the first form the compiler compiles a new instance of the function
specifically for the concrete type `T`, while in the second, it presumably
compiles to deal with a (partly) type-instable `x` within the function
body.
f1{R<:Real}(x::R) = -x
f1(x::Real) = x
f1 (generic function with 2 methods)
So the methods are kept separate, but I think the first form hides access
to the second form.
On Monday, December 8, 2014 7:12:39 AM UTC+1, Igor Demura wrote:
> What exactly the difference between:
> function foo{T<:AbstractType}(x::T) = ...
> and
> function foo(x::AbstractType) = ... ?
> Is any difference at all? The "tips" section of the docs says the second
> is preferred. If they are the same, why first syntax? I can imagine that I
> can benefit if I have several parameters:
> function bar{T<:AbstractType}(x::Concrete{T}, y::AnotherOf{T}, z::T) = ...
>
>
