I don't think so. I'll open one.
kl. 16:06:42 UTC+2 torsdag 3. juli 2014 skrev Tobias Knopp følgende:
>
> Ivar, I absolutely agree with you. This should be handled in a larger
> scope. Do we have an issue for this yet?
>
> Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014 15:42:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ivar Nesje:
>>
>> I would strongly argue against
>>
>> +(a::String, b::String) == Error("Use * for string concatenation")
>>
>> We have plenty of cases where we want to give a more helpful
>> `MethodError`. We should really create a simple system where you can get
>> those hints printed in the REPL, without defining more methods.
>>
>> The display of MethodError is defined in
>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/0df386db18dd186c7b0bffc74149fc6b0e51c67d/base/replutil.jl#L110
>>
>> and it would be easy to have a lookup table at the end of that function to
>> see if one of the "banned" methods (with usefull, more concistent
>> alternaltives) were called.
>>
>> Ivar
>>
>> kl. 15:11:43 UTC+2 torsdag 3. juli 2014 skrev Samuel Colvin følgende:
>>>
>>> Fundamentally I don't think it matters which mathematical operator we
>>> use for an operation that's not strictly mathematical (or at least most
>>> users don't think of as mathematical), everyone is quite happy with "x = 4"
>>> not having it's rigorous meaning of "x == 4". As long as there's a compact
>>> and clear way of doing string concatenation I'm happy.
>>>
>>> If most people want * that's fine especially as there would need to be a
>>> very good reason to change it now.
>>>
>>> The point is that we should make it as easy as possible for people to
>>> transition to Julia from other languages, and this is one potential
>>> stumbling block.
>>>
>>> I agree with Tobias's suggestion of a REPL, IJulia only +(s1::String,
>>> s2::String) that throws an informative error.
>>>
>>> For my part I've updated Julia By Example
>>> <http://www.scolvin.com/juliabyexample/#Strings-Basics> to give an
>>> example and a link to this discussion.
>>>
>>
