Christoph's solution is neat.
Another possibility is to just start with an empty object, by defining an
inner constructor that
does not define any of the fields, and then fill it up, as you were (IIUC)
looking for.
As far as I am aware, there is not any problem with doing this.
type MyType
a::Float64
b::Int64
c::UTF8String
d::Vector{Int}
MyType() = new()
end
t = MyType()
t.a = 17.
t.b = -3
t.c = "Hello"
t.d = [3, 4]
Note that an error will occur if you try to read any field that has not yet
been defined.
David.
El sábado, 20 de junio de 2015, 14:43:03 (UTC-5), Stef Kynaston escribió:
>
> I feel I am missing a simpler approach to replicating the behaviour of a
> Matlab structure. I am doing FEM, and require structure like behaviour for
> my model initialisation and mesh generation. Currently I am using composite
> type definitions, such as:
>
> type Mesh
> coords :: Array{Float64,2}
> elements :: Array{Float64,2}
> end
>
> but in actuality I have many required fields (20 for Mesh, for example).
> It seems to me very impractical to initialise an instance of Mesh via
>
> mesh = Mesh(field1, field2, field3, ..., field20),
>
> as this would require a lookup of the type definition every time to ensure
> correct ordering. None of my fields have standard "default" values.
>
> Is there an easier way to do this that I have overlooked? In Matlab I can
> just define the fields as I compute their values, using "Mesh.coords =
> ...", and this would work here except that I need to initialise Mesh before
> the "." field referencing will work.
>
> First post, so apologies if I have failed to observe etiquette rules.
>
