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

Inconsistent semantics of 0-dim RArrays compared to Julia semantics #141

Closed
mofeing opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #161
Closed

Inconsistent semantics of 0-dim RArrays compared to Julia semantics #141

mofeing opened this issue Oct 1, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #161

Comments

@mofeing
Copy link
Collaborator

mofeing commented Oct 1, 2024

#51 fixed the semantics problem for all N-dim RArrays except for 0-dim RArrays, which we treat as scalars. Although mathematically accurate, there is a distinction between a Number and an AbstractArray{T,0} in Julia which we should respect to ensure compatibility between both.

One proposal is to add a new type for traced scalars... My doubt is to whether TracedRNumber{T} <: Number would be enough or do we need sth like TracedRFloat{F<:AbstractFloat} <: AbstractFloat for each number type we are interested in.

CC @avik-pal

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant