Let's shortly state why "in" is more appropriate. The notion "for i = 1 :
n" is established and meaningful *when* read as "for (i = 1) : (n)", very
similar in the mathematical notation $\sum_{i=1}^{n} f(i)$. Notice the
parentheses in both expressions! On the other hand, at any other location
"r = 1:2" in julia parses as "r = (1:2)" and indicates that r is a range
and not that r is an integer from a range.
Am Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015 15:16:37 UTC+1 schrieb Stefan Karpinski:
>
> No, it's just a matter of changing the parser to accept that – and
> convincing people that it's a good idea.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, DNF <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:29:54 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we're getting into Parkinson's law territory here. First off, I
>>> don't think this causes all that much confusion. Second, since this is pure
>>> syntax involving a keyword no less, this is one of the easiest things to
>>> mechanically fix should we chose to do so in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough. Could I just ask a question out of curiosity (not to try to
>> convince anyone of anything)?
>>
>> Are there any technical problems (or other problems) associated with
>> getting '∈' to work as a keyword, such as
>> for i ∈ etc...
>> ?
>>
>
>
