On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Jeff Waller truth...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:41:05 AM UTC-4, Jameson wrote:
We know that the extremes of verbosity (e.g. C) and conciseness (e.g.
perl) are 'bad'. But why? Because using C generally means writing more
code, which takes
##readline vs. readln
Seems like a lot asking for just 2 characters or even talking about it.
It does make a difference though; It does distinguish Julia from other
languages. Does it need those 2 letters? It does feel clearer, but at
what expense? I'm not sure actually. But consider
We know that the extremes of verbosity (e.g. C) and conciseness (e.g.
perl) are 'bad'. But why? Because using C generally means writing more
code, which takes more time. Whereas Perl is 'bad' because being the
human interpreter to read and understand its very symbol dense syntax
is slow, so
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 6:36:49 PM UTC-4, bvauti...@gmail.com wrote:
##readline vs. readln
Seems like a lot asking for just 2 characters or even talking about it.
It does make a difference though; It does distinguish Julia from other
languages. Does it need those 2 letters? It does
On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:41:05 AM UTC-4, Jameson wrote:
We know that the extremes of verbosity (e.g. C) and conciseness (e.g.
perl) are 'bad'. But why? Because using C generally means writing more
code, which takes more time. Whereas Perl is 'bad' because being the
human interpreter
TL;DR Let's start with some golfing http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/.
Compact Expressiveness: A term I've coined; maybe it already exists, but
don't bother looking it up, I didn't,
In the case of programming languages, loosely, I'm talking about getting
the most out of fewest number of
Making STDIN consistently the default input stream and STDOUT consistently the
default output stream is right – any inconsistency there is just an oversight.
Could you open an issue? I don't care for the renaming to readln myself. I've
often considered the idea that lines should be chomped by
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:02:44 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
Making STDIN consistently the default input stream and STDOUT consistently
the default output stream is right – any inconsistency there is just an
oversight. Could you open an issue? I don't care for the renaming to
The issue is good, thanks.
Another option would be to return a tuple of (line, nl) and just let people
either ignore the newline part or use it. Then doing println(line) would
standardize line endings while print(line,nl) would reproduce the input exactly.
On Apr 12, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Jeff
How about leaving readline as it now is and defining readln() to be
chomp(readline())?
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 4:26:48 PM UTC-7, Jeff Waller wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:02:44 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
Making STDIN consistently the default input stream and STDOUT
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:50:16 PM UTC-4, Peter Simon wrote:
How about leaving readline as it now is and defining readln() to be
chomp(readline())?
That works, and it's backwards compatible. It's a little confusing,
though, because there's 2 read a line functions and which one to use
11 matches
Mail list logo
