Why is parseint(Int,x) not called parse(Int, x)

[SimonDanisch]

Sounds pretty redundant and inconsistent to me.
I don't know why it would be a problem to overload it with parse.
If it is parse(Expr, x), things will be even more clear and consistent.

Best,
Simon

[StefanKarpinski]

Making this more generic is definitely a good direction. One issue is that parse(::String) doesn't always return an Expr object.

[SimonDanisch]

Ah yeah, and that is also relatively annoying. I just got "bitten" by that earlier.
But I guess it's pretty hard not to do it this way...
Return Expr(:block, :sym) isn't a sensitive solution, I guess...
Is symbol even the only exception?

[JeffBezanson]

I believe tanmay has a PR open to do this.

[jakebolewski]

Some number literals.

[nalimilan]

See #9487.

[JeffBezanson]

Now #10543