Open
Conversation
Owner
|
yes, it would be nice to match I like more the notation, which can be replaced by Maybe out of scope for this package, but this could be the foundation of a pydantic-like package. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is parallel to FluxML/Fluxperimental.jl#24 in that it adds a "method" to the macro which does this:
That is, it makes a re-definable struct, with just the default constructor. That seems perhaps more broadly what you would want first, outside of Flux.
Whether this is the ideal notation I don't know. It could also be
But that's a much bigger deviation from existing code, and maybe looks more like you have forgotten type parameters.
Needs tests.