On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Chris <7hunderstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's my current dilemma, (hopefully) explained by this simple example:
>
> I have a composite type that has a bool field:
>
> type A
> x::Float64
> b::Bool
> end
>
> I have a function with different behavior based on the value of A.b. The
> manual suggests the following solution:
>
> function dothing(a::A, ::Type{Val{false}})
> ...
> end
>
> function dothing(a::A, ::Type{Val{true}})
> ...
> end
>
> That's fine, but now I have to call the function as dothing(a, Val{a.b}),
Don't do this, just use a branch. Never construct a type with a type
parameter of runtime determined value.
The doc should be made very clear to discourage this!
> which just strikes me as slightly redundant/verbose. Is there some way to
> make this more compact, i.e. just dothing(a), while still avoiding the check
> of a.b inside the function? Perhaps parameterizing the type A itself?
>
> Hopefully I made myself relatively clear. Thanks in advance.
