On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:15:07 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:06:43 UTC, ixid wrote:
The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability
but DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of
underscores as long as they follow a number. Is there any
reason to allow uses like 1_00_000, which are typos or
exceedingly lazy modifications of value, and not enforce
digits to form sets of three after the first underscore?
If someone uses different semantics on their numbers (like
ISBN), having underscores in different places will help
readability as the underscores can show the semantics of the
number.
Norwegian SSNs have this structure for instance: ddmmyyxxxcc
where ddmmyy is day/month/year of birth, xxx is an auto increment
number (that also shows somewhat the year of birth) and cc is
control digits created from xxx where the last digit also
indicates gender. This can be grouped in different ways:
ddmmyy_xxx_cc, ddmmyy_xxx_c_c etc. based on what you find the
most readable. Forcing this to be d_dmmy_yxx_xcc will clearly be
suboptimal. Of course, hardcoded SSNs in code is a bad example :)
