On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Tim Holy <tim.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience with Matlab's _obligatory_ > line continuation characters makes me actively disinterested in them. Not sure > how I would feel about an optional character.
The only reason I want line continuation instead of parenthesis is that emacs' julia-mode does not indent function/code blocks inside parenthesis. OK. I guess that's a different bug and should be fixed in julia-mode instead...... > > --Tim > > On Saturday, May 30, 2015 06:41:31 AM Christoph Ortner wrote: >> I'm surprised so few people are bothered by this. Maybe it is just sloppy >> coders like myself who worry about it ;). >> >> Christoph >> >> On Friday, 29 May 2015 00:04:46 UTC+1, Yichao Yu wrote: >> > Sorry. Somehow the gmail hotkey got messed up... >> > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Christoph Ortner >> > >> > <christop...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: >> > > Is there any chance for a debate whether or not to introduce a symbol >> > >> > for >> > >> > > line-continuation? It could be optional. >> > >> > I would +1 on this. >> > >> > We can probably live without it but from time to time I find myself >> > looking for it. >> > >> > > The reason I am asking is that I just wasted a day looking for a bug >> > >> > that >> > >> > > was caused by an equivalent situation to the example below. >> > > >> > > Christoph >> > > >> > > On Sunday, 30 November 2014 11:55:20 UTC, Christoph Ortner wrote: >> > >> I think that the standard in mathematical typesetting is to write >> > >> >> > >> 2 >> > >> >> > >> + 3 >> > >> >> > >> rather than >> > >> >> > >> 2 + >> > >> >> > >> 3 >> > >> >> > >> so personally I find the Matlab syntax easier to read. One of the very >> > >> > few >> > >> > >> choices Julia made that I am not so sure about. >> > >> >> > >> Christoph >
