I'm doing some development and wondered if this kind of pattern is
problematic:
abstract AbstractNode
abstract PhylogenyNode <: AbstractNode
abstract NetworkNode <: AbstractNode
abstract AbstractEdge
abstract PhylogenyEdge <: AbstractEdge
abstract NetworkEdge <: AbstractEdge
type Branch{N <: Phy
I don't think that's type-stable. Since each node of each tree will also be a
different type, I also think you'll end up hating life due to compile times.
There's some (peripherally) relevant discussion at http://docs.julialang.org/
en/latest/manual/performance-tips/#the-dangers-of-abusing-multip
Hi Tim,
That's a shame, I was hoping that doing the above would let me create
several different concrete PhylogenyNode and PhylogenyEdge types, that can
be used together. I guess since this is an abuse I have to pair one
concrete PhylogenyEdge type with one concrete PhylogenyNode type? I
wonde
That seems likely to work, though obviously some operations will not be
inferrable. You might be just as happy with
type PhylogenyNode
kind::Symbol # :clade, etc.
from::PhyologenyEdge
to::Vector{PhylogenyEdge}
confidence::Float64
end
type PhylogenyEdge
kind::Symbol # :bran
