I have some ModelingToolkit model that works when importing via using. Because of a name conflict, I need to import MTK as import ModelingToolkit as mtk instead. The following code works with using.... What modifications do I need to do if I use import...? using ModelingToolkit using ModelingToolki…

IIRC that decision was taken recently (and it will probably be a soft deprecation, but I am not sure exactly what the plan is there). Thanks for the link to the issue! It looks like there’s a PR Fix @mtkmodel to work without using ModelingToolkit by cstjean · Pull Request #3643 · SciML/ModelingToo…

[image] asinghvi17: highly recommend you switch to the @component function Darn it… and now that I had learned to use the @mtkmodel “macro” :wink: From the documentation: @component function AddOne(; name) @variables in(t) out(t) eqs = [out ~ in + 1] return System(eqs, t, [in, …

Oof. That documentation isn’t so great. @ChrisRackauckas could you set a claude on that and I’ll review? Basically the structure is @component function MyComponent(; name, params..., structural_params...) vars = Any[] params = Any[] systems = Any[] @variables a, b, c append!(vars, [a, b, c]) @p…

But surely, you have not dropped the possibility of adding description, like in # Model variables, with initial values needed @variables begin # Variables x_1(t)=0, [description = "Particle 1, position unit nm"] v_1(t)=0, [description = "Particle 1, v…

Metadata syntax is the same as before, I think, you just drop that into the variables macro as you showed there

The @mtkmodel macro is increasingly difficult to support. It is 1500+ lines of incredibly dense code with non-trivial control flow and its own set of bugs. It already does not support all the features that the plain programmatic form supports (can’t specify guesses or initialization equations, for e…

And yes, the plan is for a soft deprecation. We’re not just removing it. It’ll continue to work in about the same way as it does now but it won’t get additional maintenance or updates. Of course, anyone free to open PRs to fix bugs in @mtkmodel and I’ll happily review them.

Sorry for slightly hijacking the thread, but would it be conceivable to flesh out the @component style of model by adding a few more convenience macros? Not to “hide” the underlying construction in a full blown DSL but rather avoiding defining stuff in multiple places. I envision something like tha…

I do think some additional macros could be pretty useful. However, it’s worth noting that @named is exactly the @components macro you’re looking for @equations is redundant. Julia’s array syntax does exactly what you want. For example: julia> let @variables x(t) y(t) z(t) eq…

Using MTK when I import ModelingToolkit?

Specific Domains Modelling & Simulations

isaacsas November 6, 2025, 7:23pm 12

So the MTK DSL for specifying models is being dropped completely (I assume in V11), and one only has the programmatic macros now? What is the reasoning behind this?

Topic		Replies	Views
MTK & Linearization Modelling & Simulations	26	999	March 23, 2023
MTK & linearization with analysis points Modelling & Simulations	9	130	March 14, 2026
MTK: updated documentation? Modelling & Simulations	30	732	January 24, 2026
Understanding ModelingToolkit connectors and components General Usage question , modelingtoolkit	9	1154	December 26, 2023
MTK -- change in `linearize`? Modelling & Simulations	7	235	June 19, 2024

Using MTK when I *import* ModelingToolkit?

Related topics

Using MTK when I import ModelingToolkit?