I don't really get what's lacking. If you want an immutable record type why not just use an immutable type?
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 8:03 AM, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org> wrote: > > > you may be interested in https://github.com/andrewcooke/AutoHashEquals.jl, > but it uses all entries. i will consider adding that feature, though (with > the idea that if it's not used at all, all are used). > > more generally - and this may just be a problem with my programming style - i > find that there's a problem with julia (or me) conflating two different > things: > > * record types > * immutable types > > immutable types in julia are intended, as far as i can see, for small, > value-like things that are stored on the stack. while "types" are for > larger, record like things. > > some of us (perhaps coming more from a functional programming background) > like to program with records that are immutable, we have no way to do that > in julia except by convention. > > hence the need for AutoHashEquals (imho) (there are two problems - first, > most obviously, you then want record equality to depend on contents, but > second, less obviously, when these "immutable records" are used in immutable > types then you want the immutable type's hash to depend on the record's > contents, and not on the pointer value. hence applying the macro to both > types). > > andrew > > >> On Friday, 17 July 2015 12:52:52 UTC-3, Seth wrote: >> Perhaps a @unique macro in front of the type field could specify that this >> is to be used in equality/hashing? >>
