You need to use
(&)([true,true], [true,false],[false,true])
I think this is because & is used as a special character in ccall. I have
seen this raised a few times, but I don't know what to search for to find
the previous discussions.
Regards Ivar
mandag 26. januar 2015 15.33.06 UTC+1 skrev Patrick O'Leary følgende:
>
> Using JuliaParser.jl as a reference, it loks like & is in the class
> unary_and_binary_ops, as well as syntactic_binary_ops. The | operator is
> not in either of these classes. At least one reason for the difference in
> lowering to the AST is that & is also an addressof-like operator in the
> context of a ccall. I suspect, however, that the inconsistency in usage of
> the surface syntax can be regarded as a bug--you should go ahead and file
> an issue.
>
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 6:28:49 AM UTC-6, Gabriel Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Here are two statements, one written with chained binary operations the
>> other in prefix notation
>>
>> >>[true,true] | [true,false] | [false,true]
>> 2-element Array{Bool,1}:
>> true
>> true
>> >>|([true,true], [true,false],[false,true])
>> 2-element Array{Bool,1}:
>> true
>> true
>>
>>
>> Now I can also do the first for & as in
>> >>[true,true] & [true,false] & [false,true]
>> 2-element Array{Bool,1}:
>> false
>> false
>>
>> However if I try this in the prefix notation
>>
>> &([true,true], [true,false],[false,true])
>>
>> unsupported or misplaced expression &
>> while loading In[32], in expression starting on line 1
>>
>> Looking a little closer, I find that the parser does this
>>
>> >>:(|([true,true], [true,false],[false,true])).head
>> :call
>> >>:(&([true,true], [true,false],[false,true])).head
>> :&
>>
>> Can someone tell me, is this behavior for '&' on purpose? If so can
>> someone point to some documentation so I can read about said purpose? I was
>> interested in making calls in the function prefix notation so that i can
>> write something like '&(bunchofarrays...)'. This works for '|' but not for
>> '&' on my version (0.3.4). Or if there is a more idiomatic way to achieve
>> this effect I'd also like to here.
>>
>>
