But that's true of just about every instance where there are multiple ways of doing things. vcat vs [;], for instance. In some cases, there are distinct reasons; in others, there's no functional difference, and it only exists for the purposes of making it easier to read, for instance. Like f(x) and x |> f. I'm sure there will be people who ask if there's any benefit to x|>f over f(x). And the answer, as in this case, is "readability".
If the question really comes up over and over again, a FAQ should be created to answer it. Changing the way the language works because some people will ask questions is, in my opinion, a bad reason to change it. On Thursday, 29 October 2015 23:44:07 UTC+10, Tamas Papp wrote: > > Maybe I was not clear: having multiple syntaxes per se is not > necessarily bad. > > What is somewhat inconvenient is that since there is no good reason for > having multiple syntaxes, some newcomers to the language will be > confused, and will ask about this from time to time. Eg this is how this > thread got started; this is not the first one and of course not the > last. And of course then existing users will join in, and reason for =, > in, both, or a third syntax. > > This is one of those tricky situations where it is hard to argue that > the status quo is significantly inferior to other options, but since > there is not a compelling reason for it either, the issue will be > discussed from time to time. Which is of course OK, but if both = and in > remain then the FAQ and the manual could clarify that neither is > preferred, both are fine, and there is no semantic difference. > > Best, > > Tamas >
