Using map to produce a tuple inside StackObservations

[SamuelBrand1]

          This seems an unusual way to generate a collection? You're recursively generating an immutable `Tuple`. `map` is smart enough to produce a tuple give tuple input, I'm not sure why you've gone a different way here?

Originally posted by @SamuelBrand1 in #296 (comment)

[SamuelBrand1]

Rt-without-renewal/EpiAware/src/EpiObsModels/StackObservationModels.jl

Lines 81 to 86 in 1770c26

	obs = ()
	for (model, model_name) in zip(obs_model.models, obs_model.model_names)
	@submodel obs_tmp = generate_observations(
	model, y_t[Symbol(model_name)], Y_t[Symbol(model_name)])
	obs = obs..., obs_tmp...
	end

I have a query about this bit because it:

1. defines obs as an immutable Tuple
2. Does as a seq of operations which create a new Tuple at each step.

I think it would be simpler to have a pattern like

obs = map(obs_model.models, obs_model.model_names) do model, model_name
@submodel obs_tmp = generate_observations(
            model, y_t[Symbol(model_name)], Y_t[Symbol(model_name)])
obs_tmp
end 

This might also be better for type stability and not generating lots of objects. map is smart enough to sidestep these issues e.g.

xs_tpl = Tuple(i for i = 1:10)
ys_tpl = Tuple(j for j = 1:10)

output = map(xs_tpl, ys_tpl) do x, y
  x^y
end

output isa Tuple
#true

[seabbs]

Yes I agree. I think for some reason I wasn't clear you could use map with a macro call inside of it

[SamuelBrand1]

Yeah there might be an edge case problem... it would be a good first issue for someone to check out?

[seabbs]

Good idea. If this works it could be an option in ConcatLatentModels and CombineLatentModels vs the current use of self referencing functions

[seabbs]

Closed by #358