-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
fixes for at-view and at-views #20247
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hygiene has changed on 0.6, are you sure the bug applies on 0.5? |
@tkelman, yes. On 0.5, I get: julia> let Base = nothing, x = [1]
@view x[1]
end
ERROR: type Void has no field view |
This seems good to go. How long should we leave it? |
I usually prefer edit: analog |
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2024
The modification that expands `@view A[i]` to `true && view(A, i)` appears to go back as far as #20247. However, I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. Considering that just expanding it to `view(A, i)` still seems to pass the base test suite, I wonder if it might be just better to get rid of that part.
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2024
The modification that expands `@view A[i]` to `true && view(A, i)` appears to go back as far as #20247. However, I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. Considering that just expanding it to `view(A, i)` still seems to pass the base test suite, I wonder if it might be just better to get rid of that part.
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2024
The modification that expands `@view A[i]` to `true && view(A, i)` appears to go back as far as #20247. However, I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. Considering that just expanding it to `view(A, i)` still seems to pass the base test suite, I wonder if it might be just better to get rid of that part.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes several problems in the
@view
and@views
(#20164) macros:@view
had a hygiene bug, because it used the symbolBase
in the caller's scope.@view A[1:end]
evaluatedA
twice, which is a problem e.g. ifA
is an expression with side effects. Similarly for@views
.@views x[i] += y
evaluatedx
andi
twice, again a problem.@views x[i[j]] = y
did not usemaybeview
fori[j]
The
@view
fixes (the first commit) should probably be backported to 0.5.(I used a workaround for #20241 here: just escaping the whole expression, with interpolated values as needed so that symbols are evaluated in the correct scope.)