Thank you for the reply.
I do find this unsatisfying, because by the same logic I would expect
`[i=>i for i in 1:2]` to create an array of pairs in the future. But
the syntax currently creates a dictionary and does not seem to be
deprecated. In fact, there seems to be no dict comprehension syntax
consistent with the new dict construction syntax (i.e. that uses
`Dict`), as far as I can tell.
On 03/15/2015 11:55 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
> I think that in 0.4, => is not merely syntax, but a constructor for a
> Pair. So you can do
>
> julia> [Pair(i,2*i) for i = 1:3]
> 3-element Array{Pair{Int64,Int64},1}:
> 1=>2
> 2=>4
> 3=>6
>
> and using the => is just syntactic sugar.
>
> My understanding that [1=>2, 3=>4] is deprecated because it will
> eventually construct [Pair(1,2), Pair(3,4)] to be consistent.
>
> (type1=>type2)[...] comprehensions are syntactic sugar for creating
> Dicts.
>
> HTH,
>
> Tamas
>
> On Mon, Mar 16 2015, Jim Garrison wrote:
>
>> Bumping this since I am still curious and have been unable to figure out
>> the answer.
>>
>> Is intentional that dict comprehensions (and typed dict comprehensions)
>> still use the old syntax for dictionaries?
>>
>> julia> (Int=>Int)[i=>i for i in 1:2] == Dict{Int,Int}(1=>1, 2=>2)
>> true
>>
>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:08:56 AM UTC-7, Jim Garrison wrote:
>>>
>>> It is well known that the dict syntax in 0.4 has changed
>>>
>>> julia> [1=>2,3=>4]
>>> WARNING: deprecated syntax "[a=>b, ...]".
>>> Use "Dict(a=>b, ...)" instead.
>>>
>>> However, I was surprised to notice that a similar syntax still works for
>>> dict comprehensions, without warning:
>>>
>>> julia> [i => 2i for i = 1:3]
>>> Dict{Int64,Int64} with 3 entries:
>>> 2 => 4
>>> 3 => 6
>>> 1 => 2
>>>
>>> Is this intentional?
>>>
