A fun one for the new year :wink: One of the things I really like about Julia is being able to write code how I like (and the surprisingly large number of language decisions I find myself loving). The syntax is natural, I can add or subtract lines and indent however I feel is most appropriate in th…

[image] A most harrowing collection of Julia WATs General Usage Hello all! wave I’ve been collecting a few of the most cursed corner cases of Julia WATs that I know of here (WIP), but I would appreciate if people could share their own rare specimens as well. Please ping …

Another little inconsistency: julia> e,E,f,F = 3,3,3,3 (3, 3, 3, 3) julia> 3e-3, 3f-3, 3E-3, 3F-3 (0.003, 0.003f0, 0.003, 6) 'e' is case insensitive, while 'f' is case sensitive. (aside: I like 2a == 2*a , but Float32 literals can change)

[image] DNF: (2x + 4)/3a Why not 2(x+2)/3a?

[image] Dan: julia> 3e-3, 3f-3, 3E-3, 3F-3 (0.003, 0.003f0, 0.003, 6) This is kinda cursed ngl Interestingly, the Discourse syntax highlighting [incorrectly] shows 3F-3 as a numeric literal, but my VSCode syntax highlighting [correctly] doesn’t. (also, I should pick different colors in VSCo…

To be wild here, what if we did away with 2e9 notation instead? It’s not a great syntax. It’s not obvious at all and people often expect it to produce an integer. You could make 2×10^9 a literal syntax instead, which is much more obvious and could produce an integer. If we disallowed 2e9 and require…

[image] StefanKarpinski: To be wild here, what if we did away with 2e9 notation instead? Since you are a newcomer here, I should probably point you to this post: PSA: Julia is not at that stage of development anymore

:smile: I mean as a 2.0 thing, of course. But yeah, maybe too disruptive. Of course literal syntax changes are the easiest thing to automatically update. We could also have syntax changes be module-locally opt-in pre 2.0 and opt-out post 2.0.

[image] StefanKarpinski: what if we did away with 2e9 notation instead I like this. I’d opt-in just for the peace of mind. More times have I accidentally used it hoping to declare a large integer, than actually wanting a float. this gives me mild pause, as I wouldn’t be able to write 0.25x …

This is an impressive array of syntax oddities you’ve got here. Yes, we have syntactically significant whitespace for macros and array construction / concat This is unfortunate. The former is allowed because the <(5) is the function call you want and the whitespace rules allow spaces for separator…

Speaking of excess parentheses, there’s various places these are allowed and I have very mixed feelings about. An extreme example with juxtaposition julia> (((((((6)))))))(((((((7))))))) 42 And a fun one with keyword argument syntax julia> f(;kws...) = kws f (generic function with 1 method) juli…

Syntax Surprises

General Usage

stevengj January 4, 2023, 2:43am 31

Since you are a newcomer here, I should probably point you to this post: PSA: Julia is not at that stage of development anymore

Topic		Replies	Views
It is so nice to program in a sane language! Offtopic	50	4517	February 6, 2020
A most harrowing collection of Julia WATs General Usage wat	106	13219	January 27, 2024
Julia included in Oreilly's "Emerging Programming Languages" report (June 2019) Community	52	3525	June 26, 2019
A puzzling result with a simple calculation General Usage	36	1016	September 9, 2024
Syntax about *(a, b) New to Julia question	19	866	June 3, 2025

Syntax Surprises

Related topics