Yes. In old languages, there's no longer any hope of fixing the inconsistencies.
On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Sisyphuss <zhengwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the characteristic of a young language, isn't it? > > > On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 6:02:36 PM UTC+2, Matt Bauman wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:29:00 AM UTC-4, Sisyphuss wrote: >>> >>> My point is these inconsistent rules are very confusing. The experience >>> gained in one type cannot be extrapolated to another. >>> >> >> I think most people here will agree with you. The discussion on how to >> spell conversion and/or construction took 2.5 years and over 100 comments >> to reach consensus and implement the required code changes to make it >> happen (see issue #1470). Furthermore, the ability to do this only happened >> recently, so we're still settling on how to best use these new features. >> >> It may be possible to deprecate the lowercase symbol function in favor of >> Symbol, but that'll cause a decent amount of code churn. `float` is an >> interesting case as it's regularly used to generically mean: convert to a >> floating point number *OR* a complex number with floating point components, >> so that's why it's still here but `int` isn't. >> >
