Nice. My next branch will be called LoTS On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Breloff <[email protected]> wrote:
> There should only remain String (concrete) and AbstractString in Base. > > > One string to rule them all... > > [image: Inline image 1] > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Milan Bouchet-Valat <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le mardi 08 mars 2016 à 16:08 +0100, Daniel Carrera a écrit : >> > >> > On 8 March 2016 at 15:52, Milan Bouchet-Valat <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > Array("hello") >> > > This case is tricky since Array{Int}(1) creates a vector with one >> > > element, not an array containing 1. So for consistency we have to >> raise >> > > an error for non-integer arguments. >> > >> > Array(1) fails, and Array{Int}(1) gives me 140180935446712 ??!!! >> > >> > julia> Array{Int}(1) >> > 1-element Array{Int64,1}: >> > 140180935446712 >> This is a one-element array with uninitialized memory. There's a >> discussion going on about whether to change this to return 0 or not: >> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9147 >> >> > > > String(10) >> > > String isn't a concrete type currently in Julia, that's the old name >> > > for AbstractString. But the plans is to move to a single string type, >> > > so this could work. I agree that it would be more logical than writing >> > > string() in small case as currently. >> > >> > Yeah. Since `string()` works, String() could just be made to do what >> > `string()` does today. >> > >> > Can you tell me about the plans to move to a single string type? Does >> > that mean that the proliferation of string types (AbstractString, >> > ASCIIString, UTF8String, etc) is going to end? >> See https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/14383 >> >> There should only remain String (concrete) and AbstractString in Base. >> Packages will still be able to provide custom string types. >> >> > > Lower-case functions have been deprecated as much as possible. See >> > > above about string vs. String. so I don't think we're going to add new >> > > ones. >> > Ok. What's the issue with lower-case functions? >> That they are redundant, inconsistent or both with those starting with >> an upper-case? >> >> >> Regards >> > >
