CODEWITHSUNDEEP
julia
colinfang
colinfang

Reputation: 21717

Inner constructor of parametric type

I am a bit confused about the type annotations in inner constructor of parametric type.

Are there any difference in the following 4 approaches, in terms of JIT inference efficiency, and runtime efficiency?

immutable MyType{T}
    x::T
    MyType{T}(x::T) = new{T}(x + x)
end

immutable MyType{T}
    x::T
    MyType(x::T) = new{T}(x + x)
end

immutable MyType{T}
    x::T
    MyType(x::T) = new(x + x)
end

immutable MyType{T}
    x::T
    MyType{T}(x::T) = new(x + x)
end

They all work for x = MyType{Int}(1)

Upvotes: 6

Views: 257

Answers (2)

Gnimuc
Gnimuc

Reputation: 8566

According to Jeff's answer here:

Question 1: If the name of the type is X, and the constructor has the form function X{...}(...) then the contents of the curly braces right after the X are passed to new.

Question 2: To make an instance, type parameters must have definite values, so new(...) is always equivalent to some new{...}(...). They will lower to the exact same thing.

they're exact the same thing. Your last example is a canonical pattern:

struct MyType{T}
    x::T
    MyType{T}(x::T) = new(x + x)
end

Upvotes: 2

Reza Afzalan
Reza Afzalan

Reputation: 5746

I declared MyType using the above 4 approaches:

immutable MyType1{T}
    x::T
    MyType1{T}(x::T) = new{T}(x + x)
end
immutable MyType2{T}
    x::T
    MyType2(x::T) = new{T}(x + x)
end
immutable MyType3{T}
    x::T
    MyType3{T}(x::T) = new(x + x)
end
immutable MyType4{T}
    x::T
    MyType4(x::T) = new(x + x)
end

then printed their LLVM bytecode: code_llvm(MyType1{Int},Int) and compared the outputs, they are exactly the same, so I think there are no difference between 4 approaches.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions