`StaticArray` of `TrackedReal`s doesn't currently work (and I think it could)

[bzinberg]

Sorry for the lack of minimal example here, I'll add it when I get the chance.

I recently tried to differentiate through operations on StaticArrays.SVectors and hit two issues, both of which were easily fixable once diagnosed (unless these solutions cause other problems I'm not aware of):

1. StaticArrays defines a catch-all +(::StaticArray, ::AbstractArray) and ReverseDiff defines a catch-all +(::AbstractArray, ::TrackedArray). So if +(::StaticArray, ::TrackedArray) is called, Julia complains that the dispatch rule is ambiguous. (Same for the other order of operands too.) The same is the case for -, and I'm guessing also for *.

2. This line
   

   ReverseDiff.jl/src/tracked.jl

   Line 225 in 71c5ac0

   capture(t::AbstractArray) = istracked(t) ? map!(capture, similar(t), t) : copy(t)

   
   assumes that similar(t) supports setindex!. In the case of StaticArrays, this assumption breaks if isbitstype(eltype(t)) is false, and in particular if t is an StaticArray of TrackedReals. Similar issue on this line:
   

   ReverseDiff.jl/src/tracked.jl

   Line 166 in 71c5ac0

   @inline deriv!(t::TrackedArray, v::AbstractArray) = (copyto!(deriv(t), v); nothing)

I was able to fix these locally by:

1. Explicitly defining +(::StaticArray, ::TrackedArray) and +(::TrackedArray, ::StaticArray), to disambiguate the dispatch rulea similarly for - (and probably also for *, though I didn't have the need for that). In order to not encounter the setindex! issue, I had to cast the StaticArray to an Array first.

2. 1. Redefining ReverseDiff.capture on StaticArrays to do the same thing without mutation (using map + array conversion instead of similar + map!). As an aside, if this is equally efficient, seems like we might as well make this the default definition.
   2. Redefining deriv!(::StaticArray ::AbstractArray) to apply deriv! elementwise, like it would if the argument were a Tuple.