Static vs dynamic storage of element classes

[mattsignorelli]

I see that the element stores its "class" as a static type:

AcceleratorLattice.jl/src/enum.jl

Lines 176 to 186 in a43d413

	function add_ele_class(ele_class::AbstractString, description::AbstractString)
	eval_str("abstract type $ele_class <: EleClass end")
	eval_str("export $ele_class")
	global doc_str = """
	abstract type $ele_class <: EleClass
	Element class instance used for simulating: $description
	"""
	eval_str("@doc doc_str $ele_class")
	end

In my view, it would be better to store the class as just a String, or potentially an enumx, as I can't think of a use case where someone might dispatch on the element class type. Storing such information dynamically seems like a better approach and would ensure gets of the element class from an element are fully type stable.

[DavidSagan]

I'm confused by your comment. This does use EnumX.

[mattsignorelli]

This does not use EnumX; at the moment, the element classes are defined as abstract types (line 177 in enum.jl), not by any enums.

This is an equivalent issue like static vs dynamic descriptor resolution in GTPSA, or Unitful vs. DynamicQuantities.