What not just do it in a similar fashion to how Haskell supports infix notation? If the whole point is the readability from rearranging the function and arguments. Then you don’t have to deal with awkward issues like automatically including a module. That is just going to get messy. But honestly I think the regular Julia way is totally fine to read. It is a question of what you have gotten used to. I have changed my preferences several times based on what I have gotten used to. The only real advantage I can see from infix notation is how it naturally lends itself to function/method completion in an IDE. But I am sure one can achieve something similar in Julia. Writing the name of a variable and then hitting a hotkey could cause a method completion on methods where the first argument is of the same type as the variable.
On 10 Jan 2014, at 18:04, Marcus Urban <[email protected]> wrote: > To resolve the call myObject.myMethod(), the declaration of myMethod() would > need to be in the scope of the caller. That would seem to require that the > caller be in the same module as the declaration of myMethod() or a > using-statement for the module containing myMethod() would need to be in > effect. Using-statements seem can bring unwanted items into scope, and right > now the Julia runtime does not complain if one item shadows another. If > myMethod() were not in the current scope, what would the call look like? > myObject.MyModule.myMethod() looks odd. > > >
