It's a start :)
https://github.com/EricForgy/strict.jl
julia> using strict
julia> a = 5
5
julia> a[1]
ERROR: MethodError: `getindex` has no method matching getindex(::Type{Number
}, ::Type{Integer})
Closest candidates are:
getindex(::Type{T}, ::Any...)
getindex{T<:Union{Char,Number}}(::Type{T<:Union{Char,Number}}, ::Range{T})
getindex{T<:Union{Char,Number}}(::Type{T<:Union{Char,Number}}, ::Range{T},
::Range{T}...)
in getindex at C:\Users\Eric Forgy\.julia\v0.4\strict\src\strict.jl:4
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:02:45 AM UTC+8, Tim Holy wrote:
>
> Likewise, I do see why this is a little troublesome. It's annoying when
> you
> mean to write `for i = 1:n` but accidentally write `for i = n`; it's not
> always an easy bug to find.
>
> --Tim
>
> On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 06:38:46 PM Eric Forgy wrote:
> > It bugs me, but only a little, so I won't lose sleep over it :)
> >
> > Then again, I wish Julia had a "strict" mode. In strict mode, the
> language
> > would be more pure mathematically, e.g. scalars have no indices, the
> > transpose of a vector is a covector, etc. This bit me recently because
> if T
> > <: U, then Array{T} is NOT <: Array{U} although as, sub-modules
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_(mathematics)>, Tmodule <:
> Umodule.
> >
> > Then again, as I'm learning, if we want Julia to do something bad
> enough,
> > e.g. have a "strict" mode, we can have it. For example, I could write a
> > package "strict.jl" where
> >
> > using strict
> >
> > would kill Base.getindex(::Number) and things like that. That could be
> cool
> >
> > :)
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:38:50 AM UTC+8, Tim Holy wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 03:19:33 PM Eric Forgy wrote:
> > > > A scalar is distinct from a vector so size(a) = () makes sense.
> getindex
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > > > a scalar does not make sense and should probably be removed on the
> > >
> > > grounds
> > >
> > > > of mathematical elegance :) Any code that depends on referencing a
> > >
> > > scalar
> > >
> > > > via an index is probably flawed in the first place.
> > >
> > > Conversely, there are many people who seem to want Julia to treat
> scalars
> > > and
> > > 1-vectors indistinguishably (ala Matlab).
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, here's a (contrived) example to justify the
> current
> > > behavior:
> > >
> > > function sum_over_dims(A, dims)
> > >
> > > for d in dims
> > >
> > > A = sum(A, d)
> > >
> > > end
> > > A
> > >
> > > end
> > >
> > > sum_over_dims(A, [2,3])
> > > sum_over_dims(A, 2)
> > >
> > > Why should I write sum_over_dims(A, [2]) in the latter case?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > --Tim
>
>
