nice,
so to confirm we agree that
> [a,b]
2-element Array{Wow{K,V},1}:
Should be
> Wow{Int64,_} or Foo{Int64} [ ideally the former ]
and
> [a,b,c,d]
Should be
> Foo{Int64}
and
Wow{Int64,_} <: Foo{Int64) == true
?
If that is the case then there is a bug today in the typejoin code for the
a,b,c,d case ?
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:33:19 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> The language does have both Wow{Int64,_} – which can be expressed easily
> as Wow{Int64} – and Wow{_,Int64} – which has no easy syntax but still
> exists (you can create a syntax for it with typealias). I'm not entirely
> clear on what the inconsistency here is, although it would be nice to have
> a concise definition of what precisely typejoin computes. The help entry
> for typejoin(T, S) is "Compute a type that contains both T and S", which,
> while correct, is a bit vague – it could just return Any all the time by
> that definition.
>
>>
>>>
>
