I like it. I assume that the enhancement will include converting strings to numbers
'10_000' asNumber = 10_000 Noury On Feb 14 2023, at 9:30 am, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > > El 13 feb. 2023, a las 20:37, Daniel Slomovits <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> escribió: > > Seems reasonable to me. I was just wishing for such a thing for exactly the > > reason you mention (keeping track of zeroes in large integer literals). > > AFAICT you've done a pretty good job laying out the possible error > > conditions. I think your option 1 makes sense—the error-prone-ness is the > > sort of thing that could happen in theory, but I'm not too worried about in > > practice. Or option 2 is fine, I'm just not familiar enough with the parser > > to know how much harder it might be to implement. > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:54 PM Privat, Jean <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > This PhEP describes the extension of Pharo numeric literals to accepts > > > (and ignore) underscore characters (`_` ASCII 95). > > > > > > Many languages (including Python https://peps.python.org/pep-0515/ , Java > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/underscores-literals.html > > > or Ruby) accept some forms of numeric literal that ignore _. > > > The idea is to permit long literals that are still readable, eg. > > > `1_000_000_000` is easier for a human than `100000000` especially since > > > in the previous literal a zero is missing (I'm a tricky deceitful fellow). > > > The details of the proposal are in the PR: > > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pheps/pull/16 > > > -- > > > Jean Privat > > > > > > > >
