I started exploring Julia very recently and I like it. I’ve been chatting about it with colleagues. Many people coming from OOP languages (Python…) like the syntax object.method(a,b,c…). Since you can get a preview of the available methods acting on object with tab press. Would it be possible to …

Those are all good points, and it helps me clarify my own thinking. [image] jessymilare: if you want to apply map and friends to collections, you would need to specify that the incoming object is the second or third argument of your method, so you would need some marker to specify in which plac…

I think one of the possible reasons of the misunderstanding is that I can see 2 different use cases. One is seeing objects as something simple and primitive, like a mathematical object that requires some memory allocation but not much else, associated with a type and a variety of external methods (m…

[image] gianmariomanca: From “outside” it seems that Julia is focusing a lot on the first use case and not so much on the second. And it seems that there is some kind of understanding in the community that you cannot have both in the same language and from there a lot of discussion of which one …

It’s not just a different syntax. In Julia, x.f already has a meaning “take a property from x which is named f”. It cannot mean “take a function f from the global scope and curry f into it”, that would create ambiguities, inconsistencies and a lot of confusion. See also my following comment: …

It’s unfortunate that we have allocated such a good syntax x.f to an operation that’s generally not even public API.

[image] jzr: It’s unfortunate that we have allocated such a good syntax x.f to an operation that’s generally not even public API. I don’t think anyone has yet made a good argument to how that’s “good syntax”. “Familiar to pythonistas”, sure, but it doesn’t do anything special, it just shuffle…

This was my attempt to answer that: [image] jzr: It would be nice to have a way that’s just syntax sugar for normal function call very short (e.g. 1 character, normally used without spaces) built into the language considered idiomatic julia> "x |> f(_, y)" |> length # pipe proposal 12 julia>…

But there is already a short, idiomatic, built-in way to write that function call: f(x, y).

The idea is to support chaining: rather than eat(serve(cook(scramble(crack(egg), bowl), :high), :hot)) which is hard to read, egg.crack().scramble(bowl).cook(:high).serve(:hot).eat() is easier. The pipeline operator x |> f doesn’t take arguments (at least until the f(_, y) proposal lands) and r…

[image] jzr: which is hard to read I think that most gains from one-liners are imaginary, so I would go for something like dish = cook(scramble(crack(egg), bowl), :high) eat(serve(dish, :hot)) then if necessary I can refactor the last part as suggested_temperature(_) = :hot suggested_tempe…

Allowing the object.method(args...) syntax as an alias for method(object, args ...)

Internals & Design

Topic		Replies	Views
How to discover functions which apply to a given object? New to Julia question	36	6080	November 20, 2021
Method of struct General Usage proposal	27	2154	October 30, 2022
OOP-like dot notation in Julia Internals & Design	44	2808	October 12, 2024
My mental load using Julia is much higher than, e.g., in Python. How to reduce it? General Usage question , python , workflow	50	9641	November 7, 2022
Autocompletion and function/method discoverability Internals & Design tooling	15	699	December 26, 2025

Allowing the object.method(args...) syntax as an alias for method(object, args ...)

Related topics