I kind of like this approach, though -- if it feels wacky, that may be just because Julia is a young language. If this became a convention (like non-nil being true in some Lisps, or 0s terminating strings in C), in the long run it may not feel so wacky.
I prefer this to introducing a construct just for defining a generic function with no methods. Tools (IDEs etc) could be tweaked to silently ignore methods with this signature. Best, Tamas On Sun, Dec 14 2014, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> wrote: > If you really wanted a no method error here, you could define a method > that can't possibly be invoked, such as this one: > > something(::Union()) = nothing > > > That's a one-argument method whose argument is an element of the union of > no types – i.e. the "bottom" or empty type. Since on values match this > signature, this method cannot be called. This is a pretty hacky way to do > this and we should probably just have an official way of creating a new > generic function with no methods. > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Charles Snider <cjsn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Very cool Sam! >> >> Julia is new to me, but I really like ruby and was trying to do things I >> would do in ruby in julia, just didn't know how. >> This sheds all new light on the language! >> >> I really appreciate you taking your time to look at this, really very >> helpful. >> >> Thank you, >> >> - Charlie >>
