El miércoles, 14 de septiembre de 2016, 11:12:52 (UTC-4), David Gleich escribió: > > Ahah! That explains it. > > Is there a better way to create floating point literals that avoid this? >
I think using 1782.0 instead of 1782. (without the 0) will solve this? I seem to remember there was an issue to deprecate the style without the 0. > > David > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:26:42 AM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-4, David Gleich wrote: >>> >>> Can anyone give me a quick explanation for why these statements seem to >>> parse differently? >>> >>> julia> 1782.^12. + 1841.^12. >>> >> >> .^ and .+ are (elementwise/broadcasting) operators in Julia, and there is >> a parsing ambiguity here because it is not clear whether the . goes with >> the operator or the number. >> >> See also the discussion at >> >> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15731 >> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/11529 >> >> for possible ways that this might be made less surprising in the future. >> >
