Pontus, you're awesome. Technically the first commit here was merged 4 minutes before your post, but funny anyway:
julia> mod(big"0xdfe0cc00e3ae91cd981d0b4243498f8321992fbc",10) 0 julia> mod(big"0xf8a4340548e7d6be31fede13cdc4e0f5f434f33f",10) 7 My opinion would be to leave it since Julia isn't Python and we're not too militaristic about "one way to do it" zen nonsense when things aren't actively harmful or confusing, but Pontus just about wins me over with that. On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 2:38:33 AM UTC-7, Pontus Stenetorp wrote: > > I have to agree with Stefan that this is turning into > bikeshedding [1]. My personal bias is towards `in`, probably due to > my many years of Python, but I am convinced that both keeping the > current duality or picking one of them will not lead to a mental > overload. In fact, in order for us to stop spending brain cycles on > this, it would even seem sane to me to take the hash of the next > commit after this e-mail has been sent, apply modulo 10, if the number > is 1-3, preserve the status quo, for 4-6, switch to using `=`, for > 7-9, switch to using `in`, for 0, discard the number and use the next > commit instead. > > Pontus > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality >
