Is there a reason for the LCHF approach to syntactic sugar?

General Usage
, ,
1

Preamble/Disclaimer:
This topic is about syntactic sugar that I find missing. I know that these tasks are not hard to accomplish in other ways.

I often find that my assumptions about what functions extend to what types, are wrong.

I wonder if there is a special reason for what I naïvely think of as lacunae in julia, or is it just that nobody got around to it?

Here’s an example. I knew I could iterate over a Flux.chain (e.g. for layer ∈ myfluxchain) so I tried the same with Flux.parallel and discovered that that doesn’t work.

I sometimes find myself patching such holes, but perhaps there are reasons I haven’t thought of why I shouldn’t.

For completeness, here is the (admittedly trivial) “patch”:

function Base.iterate(p::Flux.Parallel, s = nothing)
    ks = keys(p)
    if isnothing(s)
        rv = iterate(ks)
    else
        rv = iterate(ks, s)
    end
    if isnothing(rv)
        return nothing
    end
    k, s = rv
    return (p[k], s)
end
2

Do you mean isempty? (Which is already defined). Empty creates an empty collection.

2 Likes
3

Sometimes the explanation is that easy. Thanks for pointing it out!

The question still stands (I should try to remember some better examples), but the title is completely misleading so I should bring it up in a new and better researched topic. Regard this topic as closed!

1 Like