# Julia equivalent of 'rm \*' (almost)

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-equivalent-of-rm-almost/39477
**Category:** General Usage
**Created:** [May 14, 2020, 3:43pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-equivalent-of-rm-almost/39477 "2020-05-14T15:43:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Henrique\_Becker](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/henrique_becker/32/15443_2.png) [@Henrique\_Becker](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Henrique_Becker)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2020, 8:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-equivalent-of-rm-almost/39477/2 "2020-05-14T20:53:43Z")

</div>

I have to say that in many (most?) `C`-like languages the difference between `variable == constant` and `variable = constant` will be losing your data. It is not something very `Julia`-specific. Some programmers of the past called for something called [yoda conditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions), that is basically: never do `variable == constant` if you can do `constant == variable`, this way a missing `=` will give you a compilation time error (on most `C`-like languages).

Not that I do not think your cautionary tale is not useful (the existence of something like yoda conditionals corroborate it), but it is a little more general problem, and one of the few thing that make me thing if the syntax `=` (assign) vs `==` (test) thing was not a major mistake from earlier language designers.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-equivalent-of-rm-almost/39477)._