Reading the code, there is also a `indent` option, i thought it accepted a boolean, but not, I find it very unintuitive:
dump(io::IO, x, n::Int, indent) = xdump(dump, io, x, n, indent) julia> dump(:(1 + 1 * 3 - 4^7), 10, false) Expr false head: Symbol call false args: Array(Any,(3,)) false 1: Symbol - false 2: Expr false head: Symbol call false args: Array(Any,(3,)) false 1: Symbol + false 2: Int32 1 false 3: Expr false head: Symbol call false args: Array(Any,(3,)) false 1: Symbol * false 2: Int32 1 false 3: Int32 3 false typ: Any false typ: Any false 3: Expr false head: Symbol call false args: Array(Any,(3,)) false 1: Symbol ^ false 2: Int32 4 false 3: Int32 7 false typ: Any false typ: Any And once can't use this argument, as a keyword argument: julia> dump(:(1 + 1 * 3 - 4^7), indent="--->") ERROR: function dump does not accept keyword arguments Keyword arguments are slow? Or why are the not used that much throughout the API? El domingo, 4 de enero de 2015 09:46:21 UTC-6, Ismael VC escribió: > > That's not documented: > > help?> dump > Base.dump(x) > > Show all user-visible structure of a value. > > Are there any more options to dump? > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not sure, but maybe this is what you are looking for, >> >> https://gist.github.com/toivoh/4121122 >> >> >> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 6:49:39 AM UTC+1, Darwin Darakananda wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Is there currently a function that converts s-expressions into Expr >>> structures (basically the reverse of Base.Meta.show_sexpr)? >>> >>> I just started playing around with metaprogramming in Julia, so I'm >>> probably doing things wrong. But there are a lot of times where I end up >>> creating highly nested Expr objects, ending up with code that is >>> indecipherable. I've found that the output from show_sexpr is sometimes >>> easier to read that that of dump or xdump (which only seems to display the >>> first couple of levels). So I'm curious to see if the reverse >>> (s-expression -> Expr) is also true. >>> >>> If this function does not exist, would it be something that people would >>> find useful? >>> >>> Thanks and Happy New Years! >>> >>> Darwin >>> >> >
