I think I have read that passing around functions in not efficient.
Or maybe this is just anonymous functions?
In any case I want to run some comparison performance tests on many
functions, so have written a general function to perform tests on functions
passed in as arguments. See below.
Q1. Is
Didn't realize it needed updating, so thanks for the bug report. I poked
around a bit, and I agree it's not entirely straightforward. I'll try to get
to it soon.
--Tim
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:21:20 AM Sebastian Good wrote:
> @anon is a nice piece of functionality but translating it to wo
@anon is a nice piece of functionality but translating it to work
post-tupocalypse turns out to be more than I can currently grok! Tuples of
types aren’t types anymore so the mechanics of the @generated functions require
some changing. Wish I could help; any hints?
On April 30, 2015 at 5:30:57 A
Check the SO post again; there are now many suggested workarounds, some of
which are not a big hit to readability.
And no, this won't be fixed in 0.4.
--Tim
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 08:57:46 PM Sebastian Good wrote:
> I ran into this issue today
> (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2617363
I ran into this issue today
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26173635/performance-penalty-using-anonymous-function-in-julia)
whereby functions -- whether anonymous or not -- generate lots of garbage
when called indirectly. That is when using type signatures like
clever_function(f::Function)
