some constructors return the "wrong" type

[ExpandingMan]

This may not be considered a "bug", but it's a design pattern that I think is undesirable from an API standpoint.

There are some places in this package in which a function that "looks like" a constructor, in that it follows the Julia convention of having a camel-case and having the same name as an existing type, returns an object of a completely different type. The examples I have run into are in constructors for various types of ODEProblem which can be found here. There may be other examples of this, but I haven't gone through the package exhaustively.

While obviously Julia does not strictly enforce this convention for constructors, I would argue that it should and, at the very least, the results can be very confusing. For example, I discovered this issue when code I wrote was resulting in method errors because I had written methods for DynamicalODEProblem rather than ODEProblem because I was calling the function DynamicalODEProblem to create the object and I could see that this was indeed a real type (I would argue that if DynamicalODEProblem did not exist this function should be renamed so as not to have the misleading camel-case).

[ChrisRackauckas]

Yeah, it's an odd design decision I made back in 2016. I don't know if I agree with it now, but it would be breaking to move away from it unless we make a DynamicalODEProblem type, which is not off the table.