Move to Base

[ParadaCarleton]

Might be time for this package to move to greener pastures (Base) given it seems to be broadly useful--do you think this would make sense?

[jonniedie]

I wouldn't mind if it did move to Base (less work to maintain on my part!), but I think a few things would have to change about it before that would happen.

For one, the plain text terse keyword probably isn't a good idea and should probably be replaced with a @concrete_terse macro or a :terse symbol to make it a little less magical. But also I think the idea of defining custom show methods for types is generally frowned upon (something to do with method invalidations).

Another thing is the <: operator being used to mean "is an instance of" here when in the rest of the Julia world it means "is a subtype of", which I haven't always been super comfortable with. I'd have to imagine if this was in Base, it might cause a bit of confusion.

[Ickaser]

To resurrect this thought: even short of moving this package to Base, if it can be moved to an organization on GitHub with more members, that might make ongoing maintenance easier (for example, changing the use of the <: operator). It seems clear to to me that this package continues to draw interest, with recent PRs like #21 and #24. Thoughts, @jonniedie ?

This is used in SciML, so that might be a natural home (alongside e.g. ComponentArrays.jl), or maybe @JuliaObjects .

[ChrisRackauckas]

We'd be happy to help maintain it.

[AntonOresten]

Regarding the <: operator, I want to suggest an insane and cursed blend of :: and <:, but out of respect for all that is holy, I will not ... ... ... ...

ok, here it is:

Click to expand

julia> @concrete struct MyType
           x:<:Vector
       end

julia> :(x:<:Vector).args
3-element Vector{Any}:
 :(:)
 :x
 :(<:Vector)

[jonniedie]

I'm good with transferring ownership to SciML.

[ChrisRackauckas]

You're already a member so transfer anytime and we can start helping.