Quite often I have to use the type parameters to make the struct concrete/type stable, but I never need to use that parameter for dispatch. So the type parameter becomes unnecessary in some sense (and ugly). For example abstract struct AType end struct Subtype1 <: Atype end struct Subtype2 <: Atype…

I feel like one should be able to do as in the second version, and still have it type stable, instead of caring around unnecessary type parameters. But non concrete types such as AType can not lead to concrete structs by definition. Not sure why you find the type parameter to be unnecessary here? …

I agree: [image] Addition to parameter of parametric type General Usage One issue I have with Julia’s type parameters, related to this, is that some of them are part of the public API and some of them are private. For above example A might be public, but B isn’t. Another…

Woops, replied to wrong post. Ok, so I can see that there are instances where both options are useful. The reason I want to make everything concrete, is because I notice better performance in my code. What I mean with “unnecessary” is that I will never need to dispatch on the type parameter, it j…

That thread includes a lot of what my question was about, thanks. To bad it seems like it will possibly first be implemented in 2.0.

Checkout [ANN] ConcreteStructs.jl - Cut the boilerplate when concretely parameterizing structs

Unnecessary type parameters

Internals & Design

mauro3 October 27, 2020, 9:06am 3

I agree:

Topic		Replies	Views
Performance of struct New to Julia	2	375	March 20, 2024
Correct usage of type-dependent constructors General Usage struct	7	238	May 2, 2025
Field types New to Julia struct	29	1068	May 20, 2022
Struct with abstract-type field General Usage question	22	7859	June 24, 2020
Are fields with structtypes to be avoided as well? Performance	3	520	February 12, 2020

Unnecessary type parameters

Related topics