Yep, I agree with all of that.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Michael Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> >> >
