Shuhei Kadowaki
Shuhei Kadowaki
FWIW, here is a documentation that may help you fix the issue:
> On a similar note, do you know if there's any hope for examples like this (https://github.com/tecosaur/DataToolkitBase.jl/blob/ca3de2496eb8517b3e8c78b5ab86ae67121a3971/src/model/errors.jl#L85-L87): > > ```julia > if isnothing(err.collection) && !isempty(STACK) > for collection in last(Iterators.peel(STACK))...
> This example is interesting. JET should not report the false positive here. For my own note, here is a reduced example: > > ```julia > julia> report_call((Vector{Int},)) do STACK...
Yeah, we need to update JET so that it is compatible with the latest version of LoweredCodeUtils.
Fixed in 0.9.0.
Prompted by the discussion in JuliaGraphs/Graphs.jl#249, I'm reconsidering the implementation of this feature. Before delving into the specifics of annotations, I want to discuss a higher-level approach to implementation. As...
> * A very simple approach might be to add a comment `# JET_PROMISE_CORRECT`, and JET will avoid analyzing any calls made at this source line. There's a risk, though,...
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the ability to use the `[compat]` could be a substantial advantage. In the case of a comment-based approach, I anticipate we would need to...
The `concretization_patterns=[:x_]` option tells JET to actually execute all provided (in order to to achieve better analysis accuracy). This means JET will execute code like the following, regardless of whether...