Skip to content
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

Update examples in manual using jl_ #17107

Closed
omus opened this issue Jun 25, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Update examples in manual using jl_ #17107

omus opened this issue Jun 25, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels
docs This change adds or pertains to documentation

Comments

@omus
Copy link
Member

omus commented Jun 25, 2016

While updating the doctests I found that the jl_ function as mentioned in the manual produces different output between 0.4 and 0.5:

Julia 0.4.6

julia> jl_(x) = ccall(:jl_, Void, (Any,), x)
jl_ (generic function with 1 method)

julia> candid{T}(A::Array{T}, x::T) = 0
candid (generic function with 1 method)

julia> jl_(first(methods(candid)))
Method(sig=Tuple{Array{#T<:Any, N<:Any}, #T<:Any}, va=false, isstaged=false, tvars=#T<:Any, func=#<function>, invokes=nothing, next=nothing)

Julia 0.5-dev

julia> jl_(x) = ccall(:jl_, Void, (Any,), x)
jl_ (generic function with 1 method)

julia> candid{T}(A::Array{T}, x::T) = 0
candid (generic function with 1 method)

julia> jl_(first(methods(candid)))
Main.candid(...)
@yuyichao
Copy link
Contributor

I believe the change is intentional and this is not a regression. The old printing is almost useless since it prints all the linked methods. It might be useful to print other fields though.

@omus
Copy link
Member Author

omus commented Jun 25, 2016

Ok. Since the change is intentional then someone will need to update the devdocs type section that uses jl_ to show TypeVar information.

@vtjnash vtjnash added the docs This change adds or pertains to documentation label Jun 25, 2016
@omus omus changed the title Regression in jl_ Update examples in manual using jl_ Jun 30, 2016
@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented Aug 1, 2016

I think Jeff fixed this one in a8d7963 by adding .sig. Do you think that's enough to close this @omus?

@omus
Copy link
Member Author

omus commented Aug 1, 2016

I think the .sig solution is good enough.

@omus omus closed this as completed Aug 1, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs This change adds or pertains to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants