Hi Robert.
That's kind of right.
Julia doesn't define functions using syntax like you've used, but here's some
Julia code that would work:
abstract MyAbstractType
immutable MyType <: MyAbstractType
end
constant_attributes(x::MyAbstractType) = 3, 2, 5
x = MyType()
constant_attributes(x)
Whether you should make the argument to constant_attributes a type or a value
depends on whether you're going to write code with predictable types (which you
should do). As long as the type of x is predictable, the definition of
constant_attributes() that I've used will be inlined when appropriate.
Also worth noting that no one uses caps when naming functions in Julia. To most
of us, a capitalized letter is a very strong indicator that you're talking
about a type, not a function.
-- John
Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I have though of this, however, it sounded a
bit like a clumsy workaround. That would mean I would have:
function (a, b, c) = constantAttributes{T<:MyAbstractType}(::Type{T})
a = 3
b = 2
c = 5
end
instance = MyType(someAttributes)
(att1, att2, att3) = constantAttribute(typeof(instance))
Right? BTW, a little OT, I know, but is there an overhead if I pass the
instance itself, instead of only its type, i.e.
constantAttributes{T<:MyAbstractType}(instance::T)?
-- John
On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Robert Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I have though of this, however, it sounded
> a bit like a clumsy workaround. That would mean I would have:
> function (a, b, c) = constantAttributes{T<:MyAbstractType}(::Type{T})
> a = 3
> b = 2
> c = 5
> end
>
> instance = MyType(someAttributes)
> (att1, att2, att3) = constantAttribute(typeof(instance))
>
> Right? BTW, a little OT, I know, but is there an overhead if I pass the
> instance itself, instead of only its type, i.e.
> constantAttributes{T<:MyAbstractType}(instance::T)?
>
