You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
|`mutable struct`|`BitSet`| "Leaf Type" :: A group of related data that includes a type-tag, is managed by the Julia GC, and is defined by object-identity. The type parameters of a leaf type must be fully defined (no `TypeVars` are allowed) in order for the instance to be constructed. |
* Interpretation: getting a field that is of non-leaf type. In this case, the type of `x`, say `ArrayContainer`, had a
The performance docs are particularly unfortunate, because they don't introduce the term and don't point to another place that has a correct definition. Further, since "leaf type-ness" is not queryable anymore, the ccalling docs end up being a bit confusing in terms of what a corresponding type would even be.
There's this comment by @vtjnash clarifying the situation back when this was decided, so that'd be a good starting point for finding a wording that is both accurate & uses up-to-date terminology.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
isleaftype
was removed in 2018 in #25496, but unfortunately the FFI docs still refer to the concept:julia/doc/src/manual/calling-c-and-fortran-code.md
Line 281 in 59f08df
julia/doc/src/manual/calling-c-and-fortran-code.md
Line 288 in 59f08df
julia/doc/src/manual/calling-c-and-fortran-code.md
Line 629 in 59f08df
julia/doc/src/manual/calling-c-and-fortran-code.md
Line 682 in 59f08df
As do the performance tips:
julia/doc/src/manual/performance-tips.md
Line 808 in 59f08df
julia/doc/src/manual/performance-tips.md
Line 824 in 59f08df
The performance docs are particularly unfortunate, because they don't introduce the term and don't point to another place that has a correct definition. Further, since "leaf type-ness" is not queryable anymore, the
ccall
ing docs end up being a bit confusing in terms of what a corresponding type would even be.There's this comment by @vtjnash clarifying the situation back when this was decided, so that'd be a good starting point for finding a wording that is both accurate & uses up-to-date terminology.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: