On 28 Oct 2013, at 17:55, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 17:49, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So what we decide to do with this? >>> >>> I can work on that case, but I have 2 questions: >>> >>> - do we care to provide parsing of numbers in other notations as Pharo one? >> >> That’s a good question.. I completely misunderstood the code there because >> that sounds a bit >> strange that a language supports other languages syntax, but not “inside” >> the language but somehow as a tool… >> >> I fear that even if someone needs Fotran number parsing, the last place to >> look would be the Pharo base kernel >> classes… > > There are 2 extremes here. If you want to parse a fortran number, you > probably also want to parse other fortran parts, and so you have some > dedicated parser. > But if you want to just parse some general number and it’s +2, then you can’t > easily do that. > >> >>> - what is the number syntax that we want to support? >>> >> Yes, we we need to document it. Right now it is “some extended Squeak >> format” which is just defined by the implementation. > > I can levee the implementation that is used now (a sq one). Or use extended. > But it should be really nice to think about what we want to have instead of > what we can use. > If we have to decide, we should take the simple path. The fact that I am completely confused about this is not a good sign (maybe more related to my intelligence… :-) Marcus
