I think parenthesis are "ok", but only just. They make the code busier and
more difficult to read.
Christoph
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 01:21:45 UTC+1, David Gold wrote:
>
> @Ben: as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, you can use parens to
> this end:
>
> julia> function foo(a, b, c, d, e, f)
> if (a > b
> || c > d
> || e > f)
> println("Foo for you.")
> end
> end
> foo (generic function with 1 method)
>
> julia> foo(1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5)
> Foo for you.
>
>
> Is there a reason this is significantly worse than what you described?
>
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 5:54:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Arthur wrote:
>>
>> in addition to adhering to mathematical typsetting conventions,
>> permitting binary operators to be on the following line would make it
>> easier to comment out sub-expressions. for example,
>>
>> if a>b
>> || c>d
>> || e>f
>> end
>>
>> could become
>>
>> if a>b
>> # || c>d
>> || e>f
>> end
>>
>> i'm not advocating for a mandatory line continuation character. that
>> would be terrible. but changing julia to look at the preceding line if the
>> current line doesn't make sense by itself would be great.
>>
>> ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:35:50 PM UTC-4, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to reiterate a comment I made above: the convention in mathematical
>>> typesetting is
>>> b
>>> + c
>>> and not
>>> b +
>>> c
>>>
>>> this is the main reason I have (more than once) fallen into this trap.
>>> Anyhow, I will try to use brackets for a while and see how I like it.
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>
