> > In Julia 0.5, [1, 2, 3] and [1; 2; 3] do not mean the same thing.... > That means that 'classic' way of doing arrays is available in 0.5? (I have 0.45 and both mine and your example don't work there) a = [[1, 2, 3, 4], [9, 8, 7, 6]] a[0][0]
> 9 Syntax 3 is not available since it already means something: > I am aware it means something already, but I don't find that meaning much useful since X = (a, b, c) = a + b + c can be written as X = a, b, c = a + b + c # first variant a, b, c = X = a + b + c # second variant with the same result. FWIW: x = a1, b1, c1 = a+b+c # x is Vector x = a1, b1, c1 # x is Tuple # and also (a = 5) #fine (a, b = 5, 6) #error > As a general comment, "armchair programming language design" is not very > effective or helpful. If you want to gain credibility when it comes to > influencing the design of Julia, you should make some pull requests that > fix or improve things first. Get a feel for the language and how it is > built. By working with it, you will come to understand why things work the > way they do – there is usually a reason. > I know that I have close to zero experience in julia compared to you. That's why I created this thread, because *discussion* doesn't *damage * anything. If you'd attempted to change syntaxes 1 or 3, for example, you would have > quickly found that they are not actually possible to change without > significantly altering the language and breaking lots of code. > I guess, that breaking code is not an issue *as long as* you can repair it with regex.
