> Thank you, Kristoffer. I have read the manual and your post about not > getting carried away by the red == bad assumption > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/julia-users/@code_warntype$20red$20bad/julia-users/g9O9Ik5OAJA/uSGNDyCDEuEJ>. > Yet, for a for loop, one would not expect so much output.
This is the lowered and typed abstract syntax tree that you're seeing, so two steps removed from what you've typed already (and another two steps to go to get to machine code). Thus it gets more verbose. I guess it would be nice to translate this typed code back to what you wrote but with type annotations and display that. But that is not possible (yet?). Have you seen this short and sweet JuliaCon presentation by Jacob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYZkHudRTvI&list=PLP8iPy9hna6Sdx4soiGrSefrmOPdUWixM&index=16 > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Kristoffer Carlsson <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> It can be a bit difficult to read the output from code_warntype. A good >> heuristic is to just look at the variables on the top and the final return >> type. If these are concrete then you are fine. If not, then you can look at >> the messy code in between to find where the instability occurs. >> >> For your examples, everything is OK.
