Cédric St-Jean

Thank you for the link to lsp-julia Here's a suggestion in line with this package's philosophy. Send this command to julia: ```julia julia> println(methods(findfirst)); edit(methods(findfirst).ms[parse(Int, readline())]) # 7 methods for...

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Isn't https://discourse.julialang.org/t/skipping-parts-of-a-for-loop-in-the-first-iteration/16252/8 good enough? It's similar to what I would write for `@unrollfirst`. I think a more general `@unroll_n 5 for...

I tried my hand at it ```julia macro unroll_n(n::Int, loop) @assert @capture(loop, for var_ in iter0_; body__; end) @gensym iter st function gen_loop(rem::Int) if rem == 0 quote while true...

Do you have a specific example that causes an issue? I didn't even document `FixedRange`, so I'm surprised someone is using it.

🤷 Feels like a pretty minor inconvenience. I'll be happy to merge a PR that fixes the issue, but it won't go on my todo list.

Maybe that's a bug in `detect_ambiguities`? It should allow `detect_ambiguities(MyPackage)` which only show ambiguities that implicate a method defined in `MyPackage`.

Thank you for the bug report! 121bab4 makes the revise tests pass, at the cost of breaking some other tests. Revise doesn't seem to like `__source__` interpolation. Is Revise really...

Yes, `@q` strips away all line numbers, which Revise doesn't seem to like. I would try: ```julia res = esc(@q begin $QuickTypes.@qstruct_fp $model(; $(params...)) end) res.args[1].args[2] = __source__ return res...

Yeah, effectively dead is a good way to put it. I would gladly hand over the reins if anyone wants to update it, but it looks like a lot of...

It bummed me out too when I couldn't make it work after the big Revise changes. I was quite happy with the functional interface, but I just don't really have...