The string unification is already in julia-0.5. There are functions called String(), Int(), and Float64(). In some cases there are lowercase variants, and these often "do more" (e.g., `float` will parse a string and return an AbstractFloat). The uppercase versions are the minimalist type-conversion forms.
Int isn't an alias for Int64: it's an alias for either Int32 or Int64, depending on whether you have a 32-bit or 64-bit computer. There's no analogous issue for Float32/Float64 (these are not CPU-dependent types), which is why Float won't become an alias for one of them. So I think your list is as done as it's going to get :-). --Tim On Friday, July 8, 2016 7:02:19 AM CDT Daniel Carrera wrote: > This is just me, but I prefer to wait a bit longer than to get mistakes > frozen into the language. One bit that I care about is the names of some > types and functions. For example, right now we have > > - Base.String > - Base.ASCIIString > - Base.UTF8String > - Base.AbstractString > > So, I want to use "String" in my code but right now it's deprecated, and > the others look horrible. My understanding is that this is still in flux > and in the future there will be a sane "String" type that people can > default to without getting errors... I would very much like to see that > implemented and working before Julia is frozen. > > I also think that the type-related functions in Julia are inconsistent. I > think there should be functions called string(), int(), and float() that > return a String, Int64, and Float64. I don't think that the Julia > developers agree with me. > > Oh, and I think that Float should be an alias for Float64 just like Int is > an alias for Int64. > > So... there are some inconsistencies in Julia and I prefer to wait in the > hope that some of these might be ironed out before they become hard-coded > into the language. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > On Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:47:28 UTC+2, Isaiah wrote: > > I knew that. > > > > > > The goal is 2017, if development community considers it to be ready. > > > > I don't mean to be too glib, but I fail to see how any answer is > > particularly actionable; it is certainly not binding. > > > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:14:24 AM UTC-4, Isaiah wrote: > >>> When it is ready. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Hisham Assi <assi....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I really like Julia (I am using it for my publications & thesis), but I > >>>> noticed that the versions are not really backward compatible. I am > >>>> still ok > >>>> with that, but many other people are waiting for the mature, stable > >>>> version (1.0) to start using Julia. So, when Julia v1.0 will be > >>>> released?
