On 05/06/08 05:05, Bill McCarthy wrote:
On Wed 4-Jun-08 3:42pm -0600, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Anyway, here is a patch to accept plain floating point numbers. Goes on
top of the previous floating point patch. Give it a try and find out if
any of your scripts break.
My eval.c is the current
Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 04/06/08 21:40, Ilya Bobir wrote:
[...]
If there are no scripts that use two numbers with a dot in between
without interleaving spaces then it follows that there are none that
have these kind of numbers with an exponent appended. And it means that
if the
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 04/06/08 21:40, Ilya Bobir wrote:
[...]
If there are no scripts that use two numbers with a dot in between
without interleaving spaces then it follows that there are none that
have these kind of numbers with an exponent appended. And it
Another corner case that I believe wasn't searched for with the regex is
simply 2e32 which is presently valid and almost equivalent to the above
If it's supposed to be a float I think it should IMHO be 2.0e32. This
format currently isn't supported for integers it seems.
BTW I'm glad to see
Nico Weber wrote:
Yes, but most people appear to be OK with the 123.456 syntax. Thus
if you want something else, you need to come up with good arguments.
I still haven't seen any good arguments why an editor needs floating
point numbers at all, other than hey, it can be done
Bill McCarthy wrote:
My eval.c is the current release patched by both your latest
and John Beckett's fix. You new patch fails with:
vim\vimfp patch -b -p 0 -i Brams-may_not_work_with_jb.diff
patching file src/eval.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 4799.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
On Thu 5-Jun-08 7:35am -0600, John Beckett wrote:
Bill McCarthy wrote:
My eval.c is the current release patched by both your latest
and John Beckett's fix. You new patch fails with:
vim\vimfp patch -b -p 0 -i Brams-may_not_work_with_jb.diff
patching file src/eval.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 4799.
Hi, folks,
The earlier thread where Bram asked for comments on floating point
syntax, after quite a few suggestions were made and rejected for
compatibility reasons, petered out. However, two proposals were made
that I think had merit, and I wonder if people have additional comment
on them
Ben Schmidt wrote:
The earlier thread where Bram asked for comments on floating point
syntax, after quite a few suggestions were made and rejected for
compatibility reasons, petered out. However, two proposals were made
that I think had merit, and I wonder if people have additional comment
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation
between two numbers without
On 2008-06-04, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Schmidt wrote:
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use
Ilya Bobir wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
The second was a proposal to represent floats as numbers with decimal
points but no additional punctuation which was implicit in this report
from Ilya Bobir:
- I did a search for vim scripts that use concatenation operation
between
Yes, but most people appear to be OK with the 123.456 syntax. Thus
if
you want something else, you need to come up with good arguments.
I still haven't seen any good arguments why an editor needs floating
point numbers at all, other than hey, it can be done without breaking
old scripts
On Wed 4-Jun-08 3:42pm -0600, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Anyway, here is a patch to accept plain floating point numbers. Goes on
top of the previous floating point patch. Give it a try and find out if
any of your scripts break.
My eval.c is the current release patched by both your latest
and
14 matches
Mail list logo
