abstract CC;
type C <: CC
#some stuff
end
+{T<:CC}(x::T, y::T) = convert(A,x) + convert(A,y)
This is what you are saying right?
If it is, I don't want to define any more + function, i want it to be
handled by some sort of a dispatch trick, if it exists...
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 12:29:57 PM UTC-8, Erik Schnetter wrote:
>
> You can define an abstract type CC that is a super type of C, and define a
> fallback + operator for it that converts C to A. If an operator + for C is
> defined, it will be used instead of the CC operator +.
>
> -erik
>
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016, Julia Tylors <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> > Hi, I have a problem i need an implicit call, I wonder whether there is
> a way to do what i have in mind.
> >
> > +(x::A,y::A) = C(x,y)
> > implicit_match(c::C) = #returns type A,
> > function foo(x::A,Y::A)
> > (x+y) + (x+y)
> > end
> >
> >
> > As you may see in the function foo, once (x+y) is executed, it returns
> an instance of type C.
> > now second operation becomes in type C+C , but there is no function like
> +(c1::C, c2::C), but i have a match function (implicit_match) which can
> return an instance of A by looking at the input instance of type C
> > I want this implicit function to be executed once +(::C,::C) is not
> found.
> > Can we do something like this?
> > I don't like to define +(::C,::C) or generate +(::C,::C) using a macro.
> > Thanks
>
> --
> Erik Schnetter <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
>
>
