Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle zero on arrays of unions of number types and missings #53602

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 9, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions base/abstractarray.jl
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1218,6 +1218,7 @@ end
copymutable(itr) = collect(itr)

zero(x::AbstractArray{T}) where {T<:Number} = fill!(similar(x, typeof(zero(T))), zero(T))
zero(x::AbstractArray{S}) where {T<:Number, S<:Union{Missing, T}} = fill!(similar(x, typeof(zero(S))), zero(S))
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Arguably this should be:

Suggested change
zero(x::AbstractArray{S}) where {T<:Number, S<:Union{Missing, T}} = fill!(similar(x, typeof(zero(S))), zero(S))
zero(x::AbstractArray{<:Union{Missing, T}}) where {T<:Number} = fill!(similar(x), zero(T))

which would mean that you continue to get back a type which can be mutated to hold missings.
However that is not the behavour of 1.10.
So I didn't do that.

vtjnash marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
zero(x::AbstractArray) = map(zero, x)
Copy link
Sponsor Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we make this a map_defined(zero, x) where mapdefined is the same as map, but adds an isdefined check in the _collect loop? Seems like we might need to define a isdefined(::Generator) check and then a iterateskip(::Generator) function for that?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could.
My thoughts on that when i initially did this was that it wasn't worth doing.
Because in the greater context of why you are callign zero on a AbstractArray,
you are doing linear algebra.
And other linear algebra operations like + and scalar multiplication, also error when you do them on an array containing any undefined elements.


## iteration support for arrays by iterating over `eachindex` in the array ##
Expand Down
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions test/abstractarray.jl
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1972,6 +1972,16 @@ end

@test zero([[2,2], [3,3,3]]) isa Vector{Vector{Int}}
@test zero([[2,2], [3,3,3]]) == [[0,0], [0, 0, 0]]


@test zero(Union{Float64, Missing}[missing]) == [0.0]
struct CustomNumber <: Number
val::Float64
end
Base.zero(::Type{CustomNumber}) = CustomNumber(0.0)
@test zero([CustomNumber(5.0)]) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
@test zero(Union{CustomNumber, Missing}[missing]) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
Comment on lines +1978 to +1983
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

arguably we do not need this, since the error is replicated with just the Union{Float64, Missing} case above

@test zero(Vector{Union{CustomNumber, Missing}}(undef, 1)) == [CustomNumber(0.0)]
end

@testset "`_prechecked_iterate` optimization" begin
Expand Down