ConstructionBaseFunctions.jl?

[rafaqz]

I've been thinking we could just pull out the functions here so we have a 3 line package for other packages to add method definitions to for their own types, without generated functions etc complicating the issue of adding a dependency.

The whole thing would be just the functions to extend:

function constructorof end
function setproperties end
function getproperties end

Is there any problem with doing that? It would also free us up to put more object definitions in ConstructionBase.jl and worry a little less about how light-weight it is.

See JuliaArrays/StaticArrays.jl#901

[jw3126]

At the moment I think ConstructionBase.jl is already lightweight enough. That being said, if potential adopters see this differently or if there is a concrete vision that makes ConstuctionBase.jl heavier, I am open to splitting these lines out (ConstructionBaseStubs.jl would be another name suggestion).
From a quick glance at the discussion you linked, it seems that heaviness was not raised as a concern by StaticArrays maintainers?
Edit: There is an objection: JuliaArrays/StaticArrays.jl#839 (comment)

[rafaqz]

Adding a dependency was raised as a concern in the related issue that PR closes. Not sure how widely that concern is held.

[jw3126]

Would be really nice to be better integrated with StaticArrays, so if they require a smaller dependency, we should go for it.

[rafaqz]

Absolutely. It's interesting that they have a bunch of similar methods already, like similar_type.

[rafaqz]

Solved in a slightly different way with https://github.com/JuliaObjects/ConstructionBaseExtras.jl