On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 07:32, Chris Rackauckas <rackd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There seems to be an interesting change between v0.4.5 and v0.5. Take a
> look at the following code:
>
> if largeFluctuations
> function σ(y,t)
> dσ = zeros(19)
> dσ[1] = noiseLevel*1.5y[1]
> dσ[18]= noiseLevel*6y[18]
> return(dσ)
> end
> else
> function σ(y,t)
> dσ = zeros(19)
> dσ[1] = 0.02y[1]
> dσ[16]= 0.02y[16]
> dσ[18]= 0.2y[18]
> dσ[17]= 0.02y[17]
> return(dσ)
> end
> end
>
> In v0.4.5, this would work as expected: if largeFluctuations was set to
> true, then you would get the first function and if false the second. In
> v0.5, I tracked down to this error where it will always define sigma as the
> second function.
>
> Is this change intentional? If so, why?
Sounds like a bug to me. However this works as expected:
julia> a = false
false
julia> if a
f() = 2
else
f() = 3
end
f (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f()
3
new session:
julia> a = true
true
julia> if a
f() = 2
else
f() = 3
end
f (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f()
2
Maybe you can try to reduce your example further?
> Is the proper way to do this in v0.5 using anonymous functions? I know
> there was a change to faster anonymous functions, but is it as fast as
> regular function, or are there some notable differences?
Anonymous and normal functions are based on the same machinery in 0.5
(e.g. anonymous functions can have methods now too). Both have the same
performance, also when used inside higher order functions.
