# Breaking notation convention - a potential anti-pattern?

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/breaking-notation-convention-a-potential-anti-pattern/101699
**Category:** General Usage
**Tags:** question, convention, notation
**Created:** [July 17, 2023, 5:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/breaking-notation-convention-a-potential-anti-pattern/101699 "2023-07-17T17:34:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![gdalle](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gdalle/32/27854_2.png) [@gdalle](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gdalle)
#### Post date: [July 18, 2023, 5:25am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/breaking-notation-convention-a-potential-anti-pattern/101699/15 "2023-07-18T05:25:11Z")

</div>

> [@frylock](#):
>
> What if your mutatable callable object computed factorials?

Actually, my “don’t” was a response to this, as in “don’t even go there it is beyond cursed”

> [@How about to simplify the factorial function name?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-about-to-simplify-the-factorial-function-name/80715/6):
>
> And then again it is debatable whether !(5) is truly more readable than factorial(5), especially in a language where ! usually means boolean negation

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/breaking-notation-convention-a-potential-anti-pattern/101699)._