> Would eval'ing the type inside the macro work? This shows [:x, :y]
>
>
This only works if A and type_fields are defined in the same module though.
Although to be honest it surprised me a bit that it works at all, I guess
the type definitions are evaluated prior to macro expansions?
A macro which defines a type-specific version @self_MyType of your @self
> macro at the definition of the type:
Yea, the solutions both me and fcard coded up originally involved having to
call a macro on the type definition, this is precisely what I'm trying to
get rid of right now. The reason for not using @unpack is just that its
more verbose than this solution (at the price of the type redefinition
thing, but for me its a fine tradeoff). It *really* like getting to write
super concise functions which read just like the math they represent,
nothing extra distracting, e.g. from my actual code:
"""Hubble constant at redshift z"""
@self Params Hubble(z) = Hfac*sqrt(ρx_over_ωx*((ωc+ωb)*(1+z)^3 + ωk*(1+z)^2
+ ωΛ) + ργ(z) + ρν(z))
"""Optical depth between two redshifts given a free electron fraction
history Xe"""
@self Params function τ(Xe::Function, z1, z2)
σT*(ωb*ρx_over_ωx)/mH*(1-Yp) * quad(z->Xe(z)/Hubble(z)*(1+z)^2, z1, z2)
end
