I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience with Matlab's _obligatory_ line continuation characters makes me actively disinterested in them. Not sure how I would feel about an optional character.
--Tim On Saturday, May 30, 2015 06:41:31 AM Christoph Ortner 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 > > > > <[email protected] <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
