I don't think there are any ASCII character sequences available for this.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Art Kuo <[email protected]> wrote:
> A small comment in favor of optional line continuations. I've sometimes
> used code to write out complicated symbolic equations, sometimes thousands
> of lines long. I found it easy to programmatically spit out both C and
> Matlab code, only having to do a semi-colon (and a ... for Matlab). I agree
> parens can mostly take care of anything, but it might be nice to have an
> optional continuator, which can be clear, simple, and explicit. A parser
> might not need it, but a human might still find it easier.
>
> If there were an optional continuator, I would suggest against "..." which
> should be reserved for splatting, so x... means only one thing. I have
> complained about how the Julia documentation is confusing because sometimes
> ... means splat, sometimes it means "and so on", with no clear indicator
> which is intended. In most cases context is sufficient to figure out the
> meaning, but better to be explicit and use a separate symbol to mean a
> separate thing.
>
> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
