I've said this a few times: anthropomorphization of Julia is not an issue, including using pronouns "he" or "she"; it is problematic to *sexualize* Julia, which is not the same thing.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Jeffrey Sarnoff <jeffrey.sarn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have never, would never, will never, could never have worked, written, > wondered, wished, anything untoward of and for Julia. > Reading me, sometimes she is the what of which I wrote. Othertimes > otherness. Never genderal, ever ontology in extension. > > > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 6:28:35 AM UTC-5, Páll Haraldsson wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:14:16 AM UTC, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: >>> >>> where I copy/paste into julia to use her parsing algs >>> >> >> [I'm not sure this is against the community standards (as has been >> discussed).. To me this seems innocent enough, but I've been training to >> say "[..] Julia and its [whatever]"..] >> >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-5, David P. Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El lunes, 2 de noviembre de 2015, 7:58:17 (UTC-6), Stefan Karpinski >>>> escribió: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should probably make it possible to access the full string >>>>> of a numeric literal in a macro but that is a substantial change to the >>>>> parser. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That would be great. >>>> >>> >> Yes, I would like e.g. numeric literals say 0.5 and 0.50 that get you the >> *same* and precise floating point number to be accessible as a string. Then >> for decimal floating point where 0.50 is not the same value, it seems like >> we could have a macro to change binary float literals to decimal, and also >> get 0.1 exact.. >> >> >>> >>>> Off-topic: Jeffrey, will your Float128 library be correctly-rounded? >>>> >>> >> -- >> Palli. >> >>
