How would this fit in with Jeff's work on types/subtypes? At JuliaCon he did talk about improving the type system (something I've been really hoping to see). It seems to me that it might be more logically consistent to return a type union for this, but I understand that currently it is easier to work with returning a simple sorted vector.
Scott On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:10:38 AM UTC-5, Kevin Squire wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 26, 2015, Ray Toal <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> I noticed that >> >> *julia> **subtypes(Type)* >> >> *3-element Array{Any,1}:* >> >> * DataType * >> >> * TypeConstructor* >> >> * Union * >> >> and was wondering if there was any significance in the order of the >> subtypes. If not, could the method have produced a Set instead? >> >> > It could, but why? A set has a bit more overhead than an array, and for > most types, the number of subtypes is small enough that sets wouldn't > really offer any advantage. > > Is there something you want to do with the results that you think requires > a set? > > Cheers, > Kevin >
