Is that preferable? The function is only defined for floats (integers or complex wouldn't make any sense). Checking would have to occur inside the function then, while I thought that it was more preferable to have the type dispatch do that.
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 10:20:00 AM UTC-5, Mauro wrote: > > I think there is nothing shorter, if you need to dispatch on the type > (e.g. if you also have a `foobar` function for say Intergers as well). > Otherwise a function `foobar(a,b)` without type information works just as > well and as fast as it will be compiled for the specific input types. > > On Sun, 25 May 2014 08:10:49 -0700 (PDT), James Crist > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > 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. > > > > On Sunday, May 25, 2014 8:16:58 AM UTC-5, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:14:46 AM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > >> > > >> function foo{T1<:FloatingPoint, T2<:FloatingPoint)(a::Array{T2}, > > >> b::Array{T2}) > > >> > > > > > > Whoops, two typos. This should be: > > > > > > function foo{T1<:FloatingPoint, T2<:FloatingPoint}(a::Array{T1}, > > > b::Array{T2}) > > > > > >
