To me, the use of ; within [ ] seems pretty confusing. Elsewhere in Julia, it seems to mean, throw away the result, so I would have expected [1:10; ] to be equivalent to []. Why is [1:10;] (confusing, ; is not consistent with any other uses in Julia), preferred over [1:10...] (easy to understand, consistent with other uses in Julia)?
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:25:32 AM UTC-4, Jeff Bezanson wrote: > > For `[1:10]`, I recommend `collect(1:10)` or `[1:10;]`. Splatting > should be avoided where possible. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:22 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > Early adopters shouldn't throw stones... :) But in fact I quite like the > new > > Dict syntax, which seems to be more explicit and readable. Curly braces > seem > > to be gainfully employed elsewhere doing type stuff. And experts can > make > > short cuts, either in Julia or in their editors... > > > > I confess I'm a bit puzzled by having to change `[1:10]` to `[1:10...]`, > but > > then again, `collect(1:10)` is more explicit and readable. So I think > it's > > progress. > > > > I suppose, as a former user of The Programming Language Formerly Known > as > > Mathematica", I might be more grateful than others for a less > > punctuation-heavy language syntax. Mathematica Wizards can fluently read > and > > write code like this: > > > > lcm = Fold[#/#2/._~_~x_|_:>#x&,1,{##}]& > > > > but I'm happy with a more readable approach. >
