As I said, it is "OK". I am getting used to it.
Christoph
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 13:34:14 UTC+1, Patrick O'Leary wrote:
>
> "Busier" I agree with, but it's marginal; grouping is lightweight as
> syntax goes. Parens (1) already work, (2) consistently mean "keep these
> things together" in a variety of computing environments, (3) have match
> highlighting support in many editors which make it easy, given one end of
> the parenthesized subexpression, to find the other end. So I'm not sure I
> agree with the latter, especially if indentation is used effectively.
>
> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 6:53:54 AM UTC-5, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
