Add IsIterable trait #25
Conversation
src/base-traits.jl
Outdated
| @@ -57,4 +61,11 @@ end | |||
|
|
|||
| Base.@deprecate_binding IsFastLinearIndex IsIndexLinear | |||
|
|
|||
| @static if VERSION >= v"0.6.0-dev" | |||
| @traitdef IsIterable{X} | |||
src/base-traits.jl
Outdated
| @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ using Compat | |||
| export IsLeafType, IsBits, IsImmutable, IsContiguous, IsIndexLinear, | |||
| IsAnything, IsNothing, IsCallable | |||
|
|
|||
| @static if VERSION >= v"0.6.0-dev" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you checked that this does not work in 0.5?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ha, I didn't, but it seems to work on 0.5 as well!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW: My comment above about the new type system was related to a "complete" solution to this type of interface specification, as it is done in Traits.jl.
test/base-traits.jl
Outdated
|
|
||
| if VERSION >= v"0.6.0-dev" | ||
| @test istrait(IsIterable{Array}) | ||
| @test !istrait(IsIterable{Cmd}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add those two tests for good measure:
julia> method_exists(start, Tuple{Base.UnitRange{Int}})
true
julia> method_exists(start, Tuple{Base.UnitRange})
true
(I remember that parameterized methods sometimes tripped up method_exists. So in case there is a regression.)
|
Thanks for your PR! |
|
Alright, I think I addressed all your requests. |
test/base-traits.jl
Outdated
| @test istrait(IsIterable{Array}) | ||
| @test !istrait(IsIterable{Cmd}) | ||
| @test method_exists(start, Tuple{Base.UnitRange{Int}}) | ||
| @test method_exists(start, Tuple{Base.UnitRange}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I wasn't clear at all, I meant:
@test istrait(IsIterable{Base.UnitRange{Int}})
@test istrait(IsIterable{Base.LogicalIndex})
and not testing the method_exists directly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The second one should also test UnitRange, not LogicalIndex, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Just trying to confuse you more ;-)
|
Thanks for the contribution! |
I'm a bit stomped by this test failure as it didn't show up in the CI of PR: #34 Furthermore, the same issue existed as far back as #25 I tried to see whether this was introduced in one of the minor versions of Julia 0.5. But running the test now locally fails for all 0.5.0, 0.5.1 and 0.5.2. So, not sure what changed.
I'm a bit stomped by this test failure as it didn't show up in the CI of PR: #34 Furthermore, the same issue existed as far back as #25 I tried to see whether this was introduced in one of the minor versions of Julia 0.5. But running the test now locally fails for all 0.5.0, 0.5.1 and 0.5.2. So, not sure what changed.
Right now I'm only checking whether a
startmethod is defined. I guess I could also check fornextanddone, but in some way I feel this should be enough.