I guess the subtle difference is that, strictly speaking, min and max of Floating Point types would be ±Inf.
> On 27 Feb 2015, at 21:46, Andreas Noack <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thats right and I realized that right after I posted. I'd be fine with using > min and max for types but probably some would oppose that. > > 2015-02-27 15:42 GMT-05:00 Jutho Haegeman <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > I am not opposed to that but the same could be said for typemin and typemax. > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > > Op 27-feb.-2015 om 21:27 heeft Andreas Noack <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: > >> I think it is fine that the type of the argument determines the behavior >> here. Having "type" in the name would be a bit like having >> `fabs(x::Float64)`. >> >> 2015-02-27 15:21 GMT-05:00 Jutho <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> But I wouldn't overload real; real is for the real value of a value, not for >> the real type. Maybe something like realtype , or typereal if we want to go >> with the other type... functions. >> >> Op vrijdag 27 februari 2015 21:18:34 UTC+1 schreef Andreas Noack: >> I'd like to have something like this. >> >> 2015-02-27 15:02 GMT-05:00 Jutho <[email protected] <>>: >> >> Or in this particular case, maybe their should be some functionality like >> that in Base, or at least in Base.LinAlg, where is often necessary to mix >> complex variables and real variables of the same type used to build to >> complex variables. >> >> Op donderdag 26 februari 2015 08:10:35 UTC+1 schreef Sheehan Olver: >> Maybe a better alternative is to create an internal function with the same >> name: >> >> real(v…)=Base.real(v…) >> real{T<:Real}(::Type{Complex{T}})=T >> real{T<:Real}(::Type{T})=T >> >> This will avoid the override leaking from the package. >> >> >> >> >> > On 26 Feb 2015, at 6:07 pm, Sheehan Olver <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> > >> > I think this is a case where I know the answer but pretending I don’t :) >> > >> > >> > >> >> On 26 Feb 2015, at 6:06 pm, Ivar Nesje <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> >> >> We have seen quite a few instances where Base functions were extended >> >> with methods without restriction to non-Base types, and it caused >> >> problems when Julia was updated. >> >> >> >> Is randomly breaking in new versions of Julia your style? >> > >> >> >> >
