Alexander Plavin

Maybe a poor choice of the words on my end. Of course, "Get me every Float64 in this thing" is generic and works with all kinds of objects, if properly...

> But not in terms of the interaction with other packages, e.g. like Optim.jl. Hm, why?.. My `getall/setall` proposal seems to provide strictly more functionality than your examples in this...

> I have never needed the thing that you want. That's quite surprising for me, actually, considering that you work with nested models and their parameters. Let's say a have...

> Setting is the hard part, getting is clearly trivial. Do you say this from the interface/API perspective, or regarding implementation? The former seems clear: `setall(x, opt, getall(x, opt))` should...

> Setting is the hard part, getting is clearly trivial. > (Your example is also trivial right? What do you mean by "trivial" here? I'm not aware of any existing...

> Recursive returns nested tuples, not flat tuples. Are you talking about the current situation, or my `get/setall` proposal? Currently, `Recursive` only supports `modify`, not `get/set` - so it doesn't...

> But as far as I know there's nowhere in Accessors.jl that flattens anything now. Sure, there isn't anything like that yet. Did you see a comment of mine above:...

> For me personally, the really useful cases would be, where getall and setall work with Vector, while your PRs focus on the Tuple case. I also find vectors important...

> using views for splitting in setall Makes sense, and I think it would be easy to do once the basic indexing `setall` works fine. > having a BangBang style...

Sorry, I misread and thought you are talking about `setall!!`. And yes, this `getall!!` was definitely out of scope for my recent `getall` PR.