Thank everyone!
I am convinced by the trick feed(man, food).
Just like: append!(collection, element) vs collection.add(element).
append! gives me the feeling that I am controlling the program :)
Best,
Cheng
Seems a bad idea even as syntactic sugar, except for the case of using
PyCall (when the target language is loosely object oriented).
If you prefer object oriented dispatch, many languages offer it. With
strong typing, optionally as Julia provides, OO dispatch can off make class
inheritance ver
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:26:00 PM UTC-4, cheng wang wrote:
>
> I don't see why it is bad to support more styles if there is no harm to
> the original one.
>
Because code that mixes multiple styles is harder to read (imagine reading
a document that jumps back and forth between different
I absolutely like multiple dispatch. Just want to make syntax sugars based
on this.
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:59:22 PM UTC+2, Scott Jones wrote:
>
> I think the important take away is that Julia's *multiple* dispatch can be
> much more powerful than traditional "object oriented" single
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:10:45 PM UTC+2, Pablo Zubieta wrote:
>
> As others mentioned, it is better to use multiple dispatch as the Julia
> language was developed with it as one of its central features.
>
Totally agree with this. using verb(object, args) to implement
object.verb(args)
As others mentioned, it is better to use multiple dispatch as the Julia
language was developed with it as one of its central features.
You could easily change the name of the function to make it look natural
(in the english grammar sense). E.g. you can define feed(Man, food) or
feed(Man, with=f
>
> The only difference between object.verb(args...) and verb(object, args...)
> is spelling. Since there is no practical need for the former, you should
> just get used to the Julia spelling when writing Julia code.
>
What about auto-complete? object.verb provides better opportunities to
auto
I think the important take away is that Julia's *multiple* dispatch can be
much more powerful than traditional "object oriented" single dispatch.
Once you get your head wrapped around that, I don't think you really would
want to go back to the Python/Java/JS/C++ single dispatch way of doing
thin
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:47:40 PM UTC+2, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea. You shouldn't try to write C programs that look like
> Fortran programs, you shouldn't speak French with English pronunciation,
> and you shouldn't try to write Julia programs that look like Pytho
Well said! :D
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:47:40 AM UTC+8, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea. You shouldn't try to write C programs that look like
> Fortran programs, you shouldn't speak French with English pronunciation,
> and you shouldn't try to write Julia programs that lo
It's a bad idea. You shouldn't try to write C programs that look like
Fortran programs, you shouldn't speak French with English pronunciation,
and you shouldn't try to write Julia programs that look like Python
programs. Part of programming is learning to adapt to the local style,
both the
Perhaps you could include the function amongst the elements of the type?
immutable MyArray
array::Array
fill::Function
MyArray(array)=new(array,i->fill!(array,i))
end
B=MyArray(zeros(5,2));
B.array
5x2 Array{Float64,2}:
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
B.fill(1);
Thanks everyone!
I also find this helpful: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/1974
A very related issue that the authors of Julia discussed.
In scala, object.f(args) is implemented as f(object, args).
For Julia, maybe this implementation would harm the performance.
Anyway, It's fine to use
Newbie here too :)
For me, the problem is having to write @mymacro everytime I use this style.
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:44:30 PM UTC+2, Eric Forgy wrote:
>
> I'm still a Julia newbie, but have been lurking around long enough to know
> that a common answer for questions like this is...
See perhaps
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/julia-dev/V1HJcHQz4JE
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:13:33 AM UTC-7, cheng wang wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> In some cases, I would like to make a function belongs to an object.
> In classical OO, we do something like object.f(args..
Le mercredi 07 octobre 2015 à 08:31 -0700, cheng wang a écrit :
> Just looks natural in some cases.
>
> For example: Man.eat(food) looks better than eat(Man, food).
>
> A similar situation is arithmetic expression. 2 + 3 might look more
> natural than (+ 2 3).
Looks like you'd rather want to writ
I'm still a Julia newbie, but have been lurking around long enough to know
that a common answer for questions like this is...
*You can have the behavior you want via a fairly straightforward macro.*
In this case, the macro would simply take object.f(args) and replace it
with f(object,args), w
Just looks natural in some cases.
For example: Man.eat(food) looks better than eat(Man, food).
A similar situation is arithmetic expression. 2 + 3 might look more natural
than (+ 2 3).
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:23:23 PM UTC+2, Simon Danisch wrote:
>
> There are a lot of things "one cou
There are a lot of things "one could do" ;) Can you give some appealing
reasons, why someone should invest his/her time into this?
Best,
Simon
Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 17:13:33 UTC+2 schrieb cheng wang:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> In some cases, I would like to make a function belongs to an obj
19 matches
Mail list logo
