> > The lexical syntax says that
> > 10e3
> > means
> > 10 e3
> > (i.e. two lexemes). I don't like this choice, and it could be "fixed"
> > in the Revised H98 report.
>
> What is the likelihood of anyone *intentionally* writing an integer
> abutted directly with a varid, followed direct
> The lexical syntax says that
> 10e3
> means
> 10 e3
> (i.e. two lexemes). I don't like this choice, and it could be "fixed"
> in the Revised H98 report.
What is the likelihood of anyone *intentionally* writing an integer
abutted directly with a varid, followed directly by another
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in "read"-ing in
> | of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
> | "3.0e-06" is acceptable but read "3e-06" is not (both read
> | "3" and read "3.0" work fine as Doubles). It's the same
| GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in "read"-ing in
| of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
| "3.0e-06" is acceptable but read "3e-06" is not (both read
| "3" and read "3.0" work fine as Doubles). It's the same in
| nhc and hugs. Perhaps this is some standard somewh
