Timeline for Should I end all definitions from packages with semicolon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2014 at 15:35 | answer | added | István Zachar | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 17, 2013 at 11:11 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 17, 2013 at 12:52 | |||||
| Oct 13, 2013 at 0:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMma/status/389183950528479232 | ||
| Oct 12, 2013 at 4:15 | comment | added | rm -rf♦ |
@Szabolcs Set doesn't print if the package is read in via << or Needs
|
|
| Oct 11, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | I usually do this, but I know a lot of folks who don't. This probably doesn't matter much, as long as one is consistent with it. | |
| Oct 11, 2013 at 19:17 | comment | added | Szabolcs |
As you noticed, it doesn't really make a difference for as long as the commands written in the package don't print any output as a side effect. Packages typically contain definitions, which don't print anything when evaluated, so most of the time there's no need for semicolons. Set is a possible exception, as you noticed.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2013 at 19:11 | history | asked | Meh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |