Splitting expressions inside of array syntax is space sensitive as well: julia> [1 + 2] 1-element Array{Int64,1}: 3
julia> [1 +2] 1x2 Array{Int64,2}: 1 2 Of course this bothers me too, but it's another example of space-sensitivity.. On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Hans W Borchers <hwborch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Style guides are not syntax rules. Every body writes n+1 at times. > Is there any other place in Julia where putting spaces (or not putting > spaces) > around arithmetical operators makes a difference? > Would this be allowed by the general Julia philosophy? > Will it not lead to errors very difficult to track down? > > > > On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:33:41 PM UTC+1, Jeff Waller wrote: >> >> The cause for this thread is mainly a lexical analyzer bug for hex >> notation. Except for the error in #9617, I'm fine with the current behavior >> and syntax even with the semi e-ambiguity if you want the scientific >> notation literal, use no spaces. This is only ambiguous because Julia >> permits a number literal N to proceed an identifier I as a shortcut for >> N*I, which is different than many languages and part of Julia's charm. I'd >> be sorry to see it go. >> >> [0-9]+(.[0-9]+)?e(+|-)?[0-9]+ <---- scientific notation literal >> >> 2e+1 is 2x10^1 >> 2e + 1 is 2*e + 1 >> 2e+ 1 is a syntax error because to the lexical analyzer 2e+ is an >> error without at least 1 trailing digit (no spaces) >> >> typing 2e+1 (without the space) and expecting it to mean 2*e + 1 is way >> over emphasizing the need to not type a space. All of the other language >> style guides are consistent about this being bad style. >> >> Finally consider this >> >> *julia> * >> *2e-1e**0.5436563656918091* >> >> This is parsed as (2*10^-1)e = .2e which I assert is the right thing to >> do. >> >