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
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
| 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 somewhere that
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 in
(snip)
