That was what I was feeling. That this was a legacy issue for lowercase type "constructors". Thanks so much.
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:11:41 AM UTC-7, Mauro wrote: > > I think you should use the constructors if the user expects to construct > a certain type, e.g. `Dict()`. Conversely if the user cares about the > action then use a function, e.g.: > > julia> keys(Dict()) > Base.KeyIterator for a Dict{Any,Any} with 0 entries > > here I don't care about the type, I just want to iterate the keys. > > But of course, it's not that clear-cut: `linspace` has history, so does > `zeros`. So, for a new container type I'd use the constructor `FooBar`. > > On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 23:12, Gabriel Gellner <gabriel...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I am currently making some container like types, so I am using the > > convention of studly caps for the types ie `FooBar`. For usage I am > > confused on what the julian convention is for having expressive type > > constructors like for `Dict` and `DataFrame`, versus using methods like > > `linspace`. Clearly I could use either, but it is not clear to me when I > > should use one convention over the other. > > > > Clearly I can have my api be like: > > > > f = FooBar(...) > > > > or > > > > f = foobar() > > > > but is one preferred over the other? Is it just random when to use one > or > > the other when making container like types? >