>
> I don't think any of these requires a specific form.
>

Ok.

Anyway, this was originally put in place to allow calling un-exported
macros:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/1107

Question raised here:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/1769#issuecomment-231596892


>
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Isaiah Norton <[email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe the second form may be vestigial at this point, and agree that
> >> it is inconsistent. The usage is non-existent in base (except for one
> test),
> >> but there is at least one issue for which the current work-around
> requires
> >> the second form: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/14208
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Hans-Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Acc. to the manual [1] either `Mod.@mac` or `@Mod.mac` can be used.
> What
> >>> is the reason for the second form? Is it necessary to make me (other
> >>> people?) think which form should be used preferably? Maybe there is a
> reason
> >>> (didn't find something in issues/maillist) but with my current
> knowledge I'd
> >>> propose to 'push' the first form and deprecate the second.
> >>>
> >>> Both forms are not used often (in Julia source and my v0.4 packages).
> The
> >>> first (Mod.@mac) form is more frequent.
> >>>
> >>> ~~~
> >>> find ~/.julia/v0.4/ -name "*.jl" | xargs ack " \w+\.@\w+"
> >>> find ~/.julia/v0.4/ -name "*.jl" | xargs ack " @\w+\."
> >>> ~~~
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes both forms are being used, e.g.:
> >>>
> >>> ... v0.4/DataArrays/src/DataArrays.jl
> >>> 78:    Base.@deprecate removeNA dropna
> >>> ... v0.4/DataArrays/test/reducedim.jl
> >>> 12:        Base.Test.@test DataArrays._any(bits, i, j) == v
> >>>
> >>> vs.
> >>>
> >>> ... v0.4/Calculus/src/Calculus.jl
> >>> 62:    @Base.deprecate integrate(f,a,b) quadgk(f,a,b)[1]
> >>> ... v0.4/Distributions/test/truncate.jl
> >>> 70:        @Base.Test.test_approx_eq_eps(logpdf(d, x), lp, sqrt(eps()))
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/modules/#namespace-miscellanea
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to