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]> > 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]>: >> 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? >>>>> > >>>>> >>> >
