Aaron Matthis

> Alternatively, we could say that _ always "binds" to the tightest thing it could. that's exactly what I meant when saying > automatically collects all not-yet-captured underscores into an...

regarding `_1,_2` to denote the argument order still makes me have mixed feelings. On the one hand it reduces the readability since it's no more simply "put in from left...

to be honest I'm absolutely against making the single underscore refer to the same argument. Because we'd lose the entire convenience for the multi argument cases only to save 1(!!)...

the numbering approach won't be possible until 2.0 anyway since _2 etc are currently valid identifiers and thus that would be breaking AFAIU

> Re-using the same symbol with different meanings in an expression seems confusing to me while certainly true for most characters, the underscore already has the meaning of **"fill in...

I love that idea tbh because it would give us some part of #24990 for "free". The only thing that holds me back is that, in that case applying the...

@bramtayl having every single underscore reference the same single argument doesn't scale well for the headless syntax. Read https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/38713#issuecomment-739422316 for why. and needing the same argument in multiple places is...

how many characters more would you need if you switch to using an ordinary lambda with a single letter variable name instead? (remember that you need the -> in any...

a) but it doesn't scale into more different arguments b) it's a huge price! we waste an entire syntax to save a single character compared to an ordinary lambda. You...

@bramtayl do the maths yourself. it scales very bad (i.e.negatively) if you intend on using any other than the first argument more than once or if you intend to use...