I've seen this type of function generation in other packages, and wanted to
try it for myself. This file in Twitter.jl has 5 functions with the same
overall structure:
https://github.com/randyzwitch/Twitter.jl/blob/master/src/help.jl
Here's what I ended up doing, which works, but I've got no i
Can you just do
funcname = (:get_help_configuration, :get_help_languages,
:get_help_privacy, :get_help_tos, :get_application_rate_limit_status)
endpoint = ("help/configuration.json", "help/languages.json",
"help/privacy.json", "help/tos.json", "application/rate_limit_status.json")
for (func, en
It would appear so...I swear that I tried that, but I guess I didn't try
that permutation!
So what's it about the @eval macro that doesn't allow for regular string
interpolation, that I have to use the string() function instead of an
inline $?
On Monday, November 17, 2014 9:50:55 PM UTC-5, Jac
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:59:50 PM UTC+10, Randy Zwitch wrote:
>
> It would appear so...I swear that I tried that, but I guess I didn't try
> that permutation!
>
> So what's it about the @eval macro that doesn't allow for regular string
> interpolation, that I have to use the string() fu
The basic reason for this is that it's fairly common to write something
like:
quote
let x = 5
"x is $x"
end
end |> eval #> "x is 5"
Where the $x referred to is the one available in the context of the created
expression. If strings were treated similarly to other code here you'd have
to wr
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 7:40:53 PM UTC+10, Mike Innes wrote:
>
> The basic reason for this is that it's fairly common to write something
> like:
>
> quote
> let x = 5
> "x is $x"
> end
> end |> eval #> "x is 5"
>
But to do what the OP wants I think you can do "x is $($x)" (but I d
Ah ok, that's a nice trick too – I didn't know you could do that (although
it makes perfect sense).
Note that this also constructs the string at runtime, though.
On 18 November 2014 12:13, wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 7:40:53 PM UTC+10, Mike Innes wrote:
>>
>> The basic reason for
Thanks for all of the input everyone, I think I get what's going on now!
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 7:19:44 AM UTC-5, Mike Innes wrote:
>
> Ah ok, that's a nice trick too – I didn't know you could do that (although
> it makes perfect sense).
>
> Note that this also constructs the string at run
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:19:44 PM UTC+10, Mike Innes wrote:
>
> Ah ok, that's a nice trick too – I didn't know you could do that (although
> it makes perfect sense).
>
> Note that this also constructs the string at runtime, though.
>
If x is a string constant a "sufficiently smart" (tm)
