mikmoore

> Not true, since v1.11 Thanks for the correction. I vaguely recalled seeing something like that but it's hard to keep up with all the upcoming changes. Really, you're right...

I would (var)argue that `Tuple{Vararg}` is not the same thing as `Vararg`. `Vararg` is a special object that (as far as the documentation is concerned) can appear only within a...

> there's currently no way to ask Julia to specialize `foo(::Tuple{Vararg{T,N}})` on `T` but not on `N` One also can't have an `Array{T,N}` argument that specializes on `T` but not...

I don't think it should be blocking here, and checking `==` for `ComposedFunction` seems weird and uncommon anyway, but do note that even the proposed definitions will say ```julia-repl julia>...

Yes, you stated the issue much more clearly than I did. Possibilities would be to convert it to `Tuple`, canonicalize it, or to not convert them at all but simply...

I imagine the performance difference is negligible, but it seems strange to go out of the way to handle unconstructable values. `reinterpret` is known to produce potentially invalid values and...

I think discussion of `0//0` as NaN belongs on a separate issue. It has negligible impact on the issue here.

> I'm intrigued by this: is there a motivating example where one _does_ want to treat 0//0 as 0? This seems to counter the properties that one may expect from...

I still think `iszero(x::Rational) = iszero(numerator(x)) & isone(denominator(x))` would be a reasonable improvement over the status quo and would match the `isone` implementation. My concerns was mostly over being too...

Maybe just check for a few "prototypical" ones? ```julia iszero(zero(Rational{Int})) == true iszero(reinterpret(Rational{Int}, (0, typemin(Int)))) == false iszero(reinterpret(Rational{Int}, (0, -1))) == false iszero(reinterpret(Rational{Int}, (0, 0))) == false iszero(reinterpret(Rational{Int}, (0, 2)))...