Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes, that's a convenient escape. But really, arguments from principle
> aside, the underlying question is what someone will see if they look
> at 1.e5, and I suspect most people will see a number with an exponent.
> This is a spot where Ruby violates Least Surprise, at least for people
> who aren't used to seeing methods hanging off of literals.
To the original point, I have to seriously question the usefulness of
invoking ambiguously named methods on numeric literals...
1e5 # number
1.0e5 # number
(1).e5 # method call, since you really mean it
The decimal point without a fractional part looks bizarre to me:
1.e5 # syntax error
Surely +. and -. are invalid syntax? << (\.\d+)? >>, not << (\.\d*)? >>.