Add checked_abs() methods for unsigned ints and BigInt #13912
Conversation
This is consistent with other checked_* methods and allows writing more generic code.
|
+1. I'm satisfied with this change. One minor quibble. Shouldn't any tests of |
| For types for which no overflow can happen during `abs`, this is equivalent | ||
| to `abs(x)`. | ||
| """ | ||
| function checked_abs end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why have you defined this?
If you want to assign to the function you can do:
"docstring"
checked_abs
after the method is defined. But IIUC this is no longer any different to attaching it to a method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted a description that applies both to signed types, as well as to Unsigned, BigInt, and to any other unsigned type that could be added a method elsewhere. So it sounded more logical to attach it to the function, and only give type-specific details when needed (e.g. for Signed below).
But I don't really understand how this works. Doesn't the method to which you attach the docstring make any difference? How are the docstrings sorted? Cf. #13911 I just filed today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Above is how you attach it to the function, you definitely should not create a dummy method to attach to.
IIUC docstrings are no longer attached to methods (they were previously), but just appended to the function docstring. There is a lot of confusion about this at the moment so I think it ought to be cleared up (hopefully with your issue :) )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my mistake, I didn't realise that syntax made 0 methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. So do you think this is correct or not? :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, LGTM.
RE the big int test thing: it's not the only bigint in test/int.jl and they'll be easy to find when/if they're every removed from base. So I think we can merge as is.
I'm not sure. None of the |
Add checked_abs() methods for unsigned ints and BigInt
|
Thanks to both of you! |
|
@nalimilan thanks to you as well. It was a pleasure collaborating with you. |
This is consistent with other checked_* methods and allows
writing more generic code.
CC: @MichaeLeroy