On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:32:29 +1000, Tom Harris wrote:
I agree. So did Forth's early designers. That is why Forth's number
parser considers a word that starts with a number and has embedded
punctuation to be a 32 bit integer, and simply ignores the punctuation.
I haven't used Forth in years,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Schmolck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's amazing that after over half a century of computing we still can't denote
numbers with more than 4 digits readably in the vast majority of contexts.
I agree. So did Forth's early designers. That is why Forth's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
On 9/1/2008 9:13 PM Ben Finney apparently wrote:
When you proposed
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:30:03 +, Alan G Isaac wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
On
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:22:22 +0100, Alexander Schmolck wrote:
It seems to me that the right choice for thousands seperator is the
apostrophe.
You mean the character already used as a string delimiter?
Yup. No ambiguity or problem here; indeed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A problem is that '1234' in Python is a string, so using ' in numbers
looks a bit dangerous to me (and my editor will color those numbers as
alternated strings, I think).
Yeah, editors, especially those with crummy syntax highlighting (like emacs)
might get it wrong.
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
A problem is that '1234' in Python is a string, so using ' in numbers
looks a bit dangerous to me (and my editor will color those numbers as
alternated strings, I think).
Yeah, editors, especially those with crummy syntax highlighting (like emacs)
might get it wrong.
On 2008-09-02, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Peter Pearson wrote:
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
allusion?
On 2008-09-03, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
On 2008-09-03, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another reason in support of spaces (rather than underscores) to
separate digit groups: it's the only separator that follows the SI
standard for representing numbers:
??? for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into
Ben Finney:
… for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into
groups of three by a thin space, in order to facilitate reading.
Neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups
of three.
On Sep 2, 12:34 am, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
I would argue that the precedent, already within Python, for using a
space to separate pieces of a string literal, is more important than
precedents from other programming languages.
that precedent also tells us
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
When you proposed this last
Alexander Schmolck:
It also reads well, unlike the underscore
which is visually obstrusive and ugly (compare 123'456'890 to 123_456_789).
I like that enough, in my language that symbol is indeed the standard
one to separate thousands, in large numbers. It's light, looks
natural, and as you say
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:22:22 +0100, Alexander Schmolck wrote:
It seems to me that the right choice for thousands seperator is the
apostrophe.
You mean the character already used as a string delimiter?
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:22:22 +0100, Alexander Schmolck wrote:
It seems to me that the right choice for thousands seperator is the
apostrophe.
You mean the character already used as a string delimiter?
Hey - I just found a new use for the backtick!
123`456`7890
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:13:27 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
When
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:11:13 -0700, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:51:16 +1000, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in
comp.lang.python:
This is no more the case than for literal strings:
a = spam eggs ham
a = spam, eggs, ham
But... Literal string
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Finney:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
perhaps simpler implementation)
On 02 Sep 2008 06:10:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the risk of bike-shedding,
[snip]
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
allusion?
--
To email me,
On 02 Sep 2008 06:10:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the risk of bike-shedding,
[snip]
Peter Pearson wrote:
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
Peter Pearson wrote:
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
allusion?
anyone that's been involved in open source on the development side for
more than,
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:18:58 GMT, Alan G Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02 Sep 2008 06:10:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the risk of bike-shedding,
[snip]
Peter Pearson wrote:
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Peter Pearson wrote:
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
allusion?
anyone that's been involved in open source on the development
Peter Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought I was a geek, for the past 40 years; but maybe its time
for me to be demoted to the dad on whose bookshelf you'll find that
old book.
Once a geek, always a geek. You either stay sharp or get sloppy, but
you never stop being a geek :-)
--
\
On Sep 2, 6:35 am, Nick Craig-Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just my familiarity, Ada language too uses underscore for
that purpose, I think, so there's a precedent, and Ada is a language
designed to always minimize programming errors,
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
perhaps simpler implementation) to use whitespace just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
When you proposed this last year, the counter-proposal was made
Ben Finney:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
perhaps simpler implementation) to use whitespace just as with string
literals.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the
D language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more
reason (readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in
syntax, perhaps simpler implementation) to use
Ben Finney wrote:
I would argue that the precedent, already within Python, for using a
space to separate pieces of a string literal, is more important than
precedents from other programming languages.
that precedent also tells us that the whitespace approach is a common
source of errors.
31 matches
Mail list logo
