As the number of functions that we support continues to grow, it seems like the current method of manually updating the hard-coded values in @replaceBase is not going to scale well, and is somewhat error prone; I've forgotten to update it twice when adding new functions.
I wanted to start a discussion about finding a more scalable/cleaner method of collecting the functions that we wish to support in @replaceBase. My first thought is a macro @register that we could wrap around any function definitions that we wish to make "replaceable", i.e.
@register .+ function vadd(X::Vector{T}, Y::Vector{T})
## definition of function
end
This would store the Base function .+ and the Accelerate function vadd in a module-wide dictionary indexed by the Base function name. We could then use this in @replaceBase instead of the hardcoded values.
Does anyone see any issues with the above methodology, or has an alternative suggestion?
As the number of functions that we support continues to grow, it seems like the current method of manually updating the hard-coded values in
@replaceBaseis not going to scale well, and is somewhat error prone; I've forgotten to update it twice when adding new functions.I wanted to start a discussion about finding a more scalable/cleaner method of collecting the functions that we wish to support in
@replaceBase. My first thought is a macro@registerthat we could wrap around any function definitions that we wish to make "replaceable", i.e.This would store the Base function
.+and the Accelerate functionvaddin a module-wide dictionary indexed by the Base function name. We could then use this in@replaceBaseinstead of the hardcoded values.Does anyone see any issues with the above methodology, or has an alternative suggestion?