There was a talk at JuliaCon suggesting that parsing ambiguities are often best resolved by throwing an error: "Fortress: Features and Lessons Learned".
-erik On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David P. Sanders <dpsand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > El miércoles, 14 de septiembre de 2016, 11:12:52 (UTC-4), David Gleich > escribió: >> >> Ahah! That explains it. >> >> Is there a better way to create floating point literals that avoid this? >> > > I think using 1782.0 instead of 1782. (without the 0) will solve this? > I seem to remember there was an issue to deprecate the style without the 0. > > >> >> David >> >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:26:42 AM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-4, David Gleich wrote: >>>> >>>> Can anyone give me a quick explanation for why these statements seem to >>>> parse differently? >>>> >>>> julia> 1782.^12. + 1841.^12. >>>> >>> >>> .^ and .+ are (elementwise/broadcasting) operators in Julia, and there >>> is a parsing ambiguity here because it is not clear whether the . goes with >>> the operator or the number. >>> >>> See also the discussion at >>> >>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15731 >>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/11529 >>> >>> for possible ways that this might be made less surprising in the future. >>> >> -- Erik Schnetter <schnet...@gmail.com> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
