On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Gabriel Gellner wrote:
> No that is a good point. Often you can use an iterator where an
> explicit array would also work. The issue I guess is that this puts
> the burden on the developer to always write generic code that when you
> would want to accept an Array you also need to accept a iterator like
> LinSpace.
>
> Maybe this is easier to do than I currently understand?
In general you can just make your function accept an AbstractVector (or
more generally AbstractArray) and things will just work. If there are
places where Ranges, LinSpaces, etc. aren't behaving as proper arrays
then I think those are generally good candidates for Issues (or even
better, PRs).
As a related aside: For efficiency you'll still want to use a concrete
Vector field if you're defining your own types, but luckily there seems
to be a convert method defined so you can do:
type MyArr{T} x::Vector{T} end
a = MyArr{Int64}(1:4)
And it will auto-convert the range to an array for storage in your type.
-s
