Changing this would be breaking--syntax that currently works (even if you don't expect it to) wouldn't work anymore. If someone is actually using this syntax, then we'd break their code on a release which is billed as a minor maintenance release. That's not going to work.
There may be a Lint.jl check for this, though? It sounds familiar. On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 5:12:31 PM UTC-5, Art Kuo wrote: > > That's great that it's fixed in 0.4, but even in 0.3.X I would still label > it inconsistent behavior, or perhaps even a bug. Why should this happen: > > *julia> **x.2 == x*.2* > > *true* > > *julia> **x0.2 == x*0.2* > > *ERROR: x0 not defined* > > *julia> **x2 == x*2* > > *ERROR: x2 not defined* > > It seems consistent that .2X == .2*X, 0.2X == 0.2*X, 2X == 2*X, so it is > fine if the number occurs before the variable. But not if the number occurs > after, so I agree with the proposal to ban X.2, meaning trigger an error. > Shouldn't this be the case for 0.3 versions as well? > > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:14:24 AM UTC-4, Seth wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 8:04:11 AM UTC-5, Jerry Xiong wrote: >>> >>> Today I spend many time to find a bug in my code. It is turn out that I >>> mistakenly wrote sum(X,2) as sum(X.2). No any error information is reported >>> and Julia regarded X.2 as X*0.2. The comma "," is quite close to dot "." in >>> the keyboard and looks quite similar in some fonts. As there is no any >>> error occur, this bug will be dangerous. Also, it is not intuitive to >>> understand X.2 is X*0.2. I think maybe it is better to forbid syntax like >>> X.2 but only allowed .2X. >>> >> >> This appears to be fixed in 0.4: >> >> julia> x = 100 >> 100 >> >> julia> x.2 >> ERROR: syntax: extra token "0.2" after end of expression >> >> julia> sum(x.2) >> ERROR: syntax: missing comma or ) in argument list >> >> julia> f(x) = x.2 >> ERROR: syntax: extra token "0.2" after end of expression >> >> julia> f(x) = sum(x.2) >> ERROR: syntax: missing comma or ) in argument list >> >> >> >
