In general, 1. if my code stretches to multiple lines, that is usually a warning sign that I may be doing something wrong. Expressions that are very long are difficult to understand, and thus are likely source of bugs.
2. if I review my code and find that I really need multiple lines, ending with a binary operator or wrapping the whole thing (or the part that would break) in ()'s usually helps. IMO further syntax for line continuations is not necessary, but of course reasonable people can hold differing opinions on this. Best, Tamas On Sat, May 30 2015, Christoph Ortner <christophortn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm surprised so few people are bothered by this. Maybe it is just sloppy > coders like myself who worry about it ;). > > Christoph > > > On Friday, 29 May 2015 00:04:46 UTC+1, Yichao Yu wrote: >> >> Sorry. Somehow the gmail hotkey got messed up... >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Christoph Ortner >> <christop...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: >> > >> > Is there any chance for a debate whether or not to introduce a symbol >> for >> > line-continuation? It could be optional. >> >> I would +1 on this. >> >> We can probably live without it but from time to time I find myself >> looking for it. >> >> > The reason I am asking is that I just wasted a day looking for a bug >> that >> > was caused by an equivalent situation to the example below. >> > >> > Christoph >> > >> > On Sunday, 30 November 2014 11:55:20 UTC, Christoph Ortner wrote: >> >> >> >> I think that the standard in mathematical typesetting is to write >> >> 2 >> >> + 3 >> >> rather than >> >> 2 + >> >> 3 >> >> >> >> so personally I find the Matlab syntax easier to read. One of the very >> few >> >> choices Julia made that I am not so sure about. >> >> >> >> Christoph >> >> >> > >>
