Conversation
| T <: CartesianIndex ? (M += length(T)) : (M += 1) | ||
| end | ||
| index_length_expr = index <: Colon ? Symbol(string("Istride_", N+1)) : :(length(index)) | ||
| index_length_expr = index <: Colon ? Symbol("Istride_", N+1) : :(length(index)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah damn, this'll probably fail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also best not to at-notify users in commit messages, otherwise every time this gets rebased they will get a notification
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good to know, will change the message when I rebase. Er, why is this "outdated" already?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I take it back, the above should work. Do you want me to amend the commit message (to remove the mistyped stevengj's at handle)?
base/dates/arithmetic.jl
Outdated
|
|
||
| for op in (:.+, :.-) | ||
| op_ = symbol(string(op)[2:end]) | ||
| op_ = Symbol(string(op)[2:end]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this actually can be Symbol(string(op)[2]).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not if we add any other operators to the for loop
hayd
force-pushed
the
pr16130
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b793476 to
df832b7
Compare
From comments by stevengj in JuliaLang#15995.
| @@ -144,13 +144,13 @@ representations together: | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missed the rename of :func:symbol`` here. It might also be more intuitive to rewrite it and call it the Symbol constructor rather than a regular function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this was here before, so let's patch that up after :)
|
Since this has already had several rounds of comments I'm going to merge this. Thanks @jeffreysarnoff-dev / @JeffreySarnoff ! |
base/deprecated.jl
Outdated
| @deprecate sprand{T}(n::Integer, density::AbstractFloat, ::Type{T}) sprand(T, n, density) | ||
| @deprecate sprand{T}(r::AbstractRNG, n::Integer, density::AbstractFloat, ::Type{T}) sprand(r, T, n, density) | ||
|
|
||
| #16130 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ha, that's one of the numbers... we should use the original.
|
|
||
| for op in (:.+, :.-) | ||
| op_ = symbol(string(op)[2:end]) | ||
| op_ = Symbol(string(op)[2]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should really not be combined with renaming
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's in the second, cleanup, commit.
Edit: That is, the right hand side of this line diff is in the second commit (removing :end). The symbol -> Symbol is in the first commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there are multi character dot operators that this loop may want to be extended to, I think this change is unnecessary and could make this bug prone later
|
this caused several method overwrite warnings |
|
While you're at it, would you be willing to add the new |
|
Yes, this urgently needs Compat definitions. |
7 participants
Originally #15995 (and #16130 #16037 #16038 #16150).
In the second commit I address stevengj's comments from the original PR. Hopefully it'll pass the tests...