On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:06:51 AM UTC+2, Mauro wrote: > > > 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 > >
Yes, you worded better than I could: whether it is possible to get a sort of breadth first view of the code. From the nice (and too short, thanks for the link) presentation, it seems that this is not possible. Is there any hope that the "yet?" will become reality? I understand thought that this may be a request from somebody unable to read quickly the output of code_typed.
