Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

Yes, that's essentially it – except that since we haven't converged on a particular design, it's hard to say exactly what interfaces are at this point. But yes, it's something that provides a first class representation of some protocol/interface. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Brian Rogoff

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:00:21 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > No, Function doesn't have signatures, arity or return type as part of its > type. The signature of a function is the union of its method signatures, > which is potentially very complicated. Type parameters are not >

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Brian Rogoff wrote: > Great summary, thanks so much! > > Being a fan of typeful functional programming, I really like the return > type annotations and FP performance improvements. Is there a way to > describe a precise return type for a

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:40:27 PM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:26:54 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> That's a fair point. It seems like it could/should be handled by the same >> (not-yet-implemented) mechanism that ensures that

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:26:54 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > That's a fair point. It seems like it could/should be handled by the same > (not-yet-implemented) mechanism that ensures that `convert(T,x)::T` is > true. Of course, we could choose to enforce this fact via

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia 0.5 Highlights

That's a fair point. It seems like it could/should be handled by the same (not-yet-implemented) mechanism that ensures that `convert(T,x)::T` is true. Of course, we could choose to enforce this fact via lowering in this case, independent of enforcing it for convert. On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:40