support for generators instead of curly syntax in Julia 0.5 #807
Conversation
Current coverage is 84.68% (diff: 4.13%)@@ master #807 diff @@
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 4075 4219 +144
Methods 0 0
Messages 0 0
Branches 0 0
==========================================
+ Hits 3566 3573 +7
- Misses 509 646 +137
Partials 0 0
|
|
Everything's passing. Will merge in a few days if there are no objections, followed by a post to julia-opt calling for testers for the new syntax. |
|
We're not losing any functionality here, correct? If so, I'm all for it. |
|
No loss of functionality, if this syntax had been around 3 years ago we would have definitely chosen it over the curly braces. |
| end | ||
| end | ||
| for level in length(x.args[2].args):-1:2 | ||
| _idxvar, idxset = parseIdxSet(x.args[2].args[level]::Expr) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the type assert needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dunno, just following the previous code here
|
What about deprecating the curly bracket syntax? |
I was thinking about holding off on that until 0.15, if 0.14 is the last release that supports 0.4. People who want to be able to use the same JuMP models on Julia 0.4 and 0.5 without annoying deprecation warnings can then use JuMP 0.14. |
|
This is also a more invasive change than the big renaming, since it requires more than find and replace. Hopefully @tkelman won't tell us that we'll be driving cars off the road because of it. |
|
Its going to be nice to not have to explain the |
Now that Julia master has support for generator syntax with filters (JuliaLang/julia#550), we can now support this:
This PR enables support for generator syntax wherever we used to use curly braces. Once we drop support for Julia 0.4, we should also deprecate the curly syntax.