# Syntax Surprises

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntax-surprises/92369
**Category:** General Usage
**Tags:** syntax, discussion, fun, gotchas
**Created:** [December 31, 2022, 8:00pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntax-surprises/92369 "2022-12-31T20:00:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2023, 8:08pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntax-surprises/92369/18 "2023-01-03T20:08:41Z")

</div>

> [@ForceBru](#):
>
> The ultimate questions are: do Julia programmers find this syntax useful enough?

I think you’ll find that a lot of us like this syntax — it’s less about saving one `*` character and more that `3x+1` is more readable than `3*x+1` — and it doesn’t seem to have been a practical source of lots of bugs.

> [@ForceBru](#):
>
> Petition to make syntax like `4a`, `4(a)` and `(4)(a)` an error in Julia 2.0.

This seems like one of those things that is simply not on the table: [PSA: Julia is not at that stage of development anymore](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/psa-julia-is-not-at-that-stage-of-development-anymore/44872)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntax-surprises/92369)._