I thougt one advantage of using sets would be the ability to use set
operations, but they work on arrays to, by the way the documentation of ie,
union falls short, because it’s actually more general than what it says (*not
only sets*):
help?> union
search: union union! Union @unix_only function Function functionloc functionlocs
union(s1,s2...)
∪(s1,s2...)
Construct the union of two or more sets. Maintains order with arrays.
julia> union([1, 1], [2]) # this also works!
2-element Array{Int64,1}:
1
2
Ismael Venegas Castelló
*Data Analyst*
Cel. 044 55 6434 0229
[email protected]
Cerro San Francisco 357, C.P. 04200
Campestre Churubusco, Coyoacán
Ciudad de México
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XX43Mx_82W1p1tN-8q-fZWW3LPXXH56dKBHf5NSPJF02?t=https%3A%2F%2Frichit.com.mx%2F&si=4656540167962624&pi=490f30db-2991-43c1-8848-db887e2fde0c>
<https://www.facebook.com/richitsolution>
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XX43Mx_82W1p1tN-8q-fZWW3LPXXH56dKBHf5NSPJF02?t=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frichitsolution&si=4656540167962624&pi=490f30db-2991-43c1-8848-db887e2fde0c>
<[email protected]>
Tel. 6718 1818
richit.com.mx
2015-12-28 12:44 GMT-06:00 Scott Jones <[email protected]>:
> 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]> 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
>>
>
