julia> Int(3.0)
3
julia> Int(3.2)
ERROR: InexactError()
in call at essentials.jl:56
That's pretty reasonable, no?
--Tim
On Tuesday, March 08, 2016 04:12:34 AM Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In Julia 0.4 the "int(foo)" syntax was deprecated:
>
> julia> int(3.2)
> WARNING: int(x::AbstractFloat) is deprecated, use round(Int,x) instead.
> ...
> 3
>
> I am happy with `round(Int,x)` but recently I noticed that Python
> consistently uses the name of the a type as the name of the function to
> convert values into that type. Compare:
>
> Python:
>
> list("hello") # Creates a `list` type.
> str(10) # Creates a `str` type.
> int(3.2) # Creates an `int` type.
> set("hello") # Creates a `set` type.
>
>
> Julia:
>
> collect("hello") # Creates an Array
> string(10) # Creates an ASCIIString
> round(Int,3.2) # Creates an Int
> Set("hello") # Creates a Set.
>
> I think the Python guys are onto something. It is easy to remember that the
> name of the function is the name of the type. Do you think there is any
> merit in Julia copying that idea? In Julia the equivalent might be
> something like this:
>
> Array("hello")
> String(10)
> Int(3.2)
> Set("hello")
>
> Currently only the last one works. The others give errors, and String is in
> fact deprecated. We could try the lower case versions:
>
> array("hello")
> string(10)
> int(3.2)
> set("hello")
>
> Now string(10) works, but int(3.2) is deprecated. The others don't exist
> but could exist:
>
> set(x) = Set(x)
> array(x) = collect(x)
>
> I think it would be nice for Julia add this extra bit of consistency in the
> language. What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
