Support sort(keys(::Dict)) and sort(values(::Dict))#56978
Support sort(keys(::Dict)) and sort(values(::Dict))#56978LilithHafner merged 6 commits intomasterfrom
sort(keys(::Dict)) and sort(values(::Dict))#56978Conversation
LilithHafner
added
iteration
Co-authored-by: Neven Sajko <[email protected]>
Including updating the version in the title
In cases where a function is documented as
```
function(arg::ArgT, arg2::Arg2T) -> RetT
...
```
I either switched ` -> ` to `::` or switched `RetT` to `ret_name::RetT`.
From the recommendation and justification from @nsajko here:
#56978 (comment) and
applied throughout the repo.
As documented here #57583
Also includes some minor changes to touched lines (e.g. removing annotations that are just clutter)
In cases where a function is documented as
```
function(arg::ArgT, arg2::Arg2T) -> RetT
...
```
I either switched ` -> ` to `::` or switched `RetT` to `ret_name::RetT`.
From the recommendation and justification from @nsajko here:
JuliaLang#56978 (comment) and
applied throughout the repo.
As documented here JuliaLang#57583
Also includes some minor changes to touched lines (e.g. removing annotations that are just clutter)
|
Should this be reverted (for the same reason as the other PR)? I don't see any discussion about this, just a PR and then merge by the author, and #52010 also applies here? It's a weird special case in my opinion. |
|
Well, I guess the question is what the behaviors of the hypothetical future alternative type would be. The only way we'd care to reserve such future behaviors is if we'd want to implement any of these types in the future. I don't see such value in the |
|
I still like #51977 (comment) . not sure if that was fully considered & rejected yet or if it's still on the table |
I think that might be defensible for a |
5 participants
Part of the sorting iterables saga:
#38328
#46104
#51977
#52010
#54494