Hi, I agree with Nathan on the decision-making here, which is why I raised the issue rather than just put it in. It's a minor suggestion. I'd like to see it included, but concede your point. Let's get the floating point patch together and submit for committing.
(I may bring this up again at a later date once the fp numerics patch is in. As I noted, it just requires an additional line or two of code.) Best, WILL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Romianowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Velocity Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Velocity Numerics: Floating Point Literals > Will, > > I fully understand your point. Personally I always wondered why people > are using the "%"-key on their calculators ;) > Where is the point to stop at? You have arguments for including the %-stuff. > Others working in another business may argue that the binary or octal > representation of literals should be included. You can add points to this > list as you wish - there are plenty of them. What I am trying to say is > that I see velocity as a basic template-engine that gives you a foundation > to build you view-layer upon. Honestly I am a -0 on you proposal. I don't > like the idea but it is no big PITA for me if it is in there. But I am > *definitely* -1 on including it now. I'd like to get a full "floating point" > proposal together first and then think of other stuff to be included. > > But since I am not a committer my -0s and -1s don't count anyway. If you > insist on the %-sign then it would be best if you propose it in a different > patch. > > Regards, > Peter > > ..: I will now take a look at your literal stuff and then add the DIV-operator > and the Comparable-stuff. I hope to get it done early this week (the weekend > has been too busy). > > Will Glass-Husain wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the comments. But I'm going to push back on this a little. > > > > It's not featuritis. It's a simple change to the (currently non-committed) > > floating point literal format. It will add 3 characters to the regular > > expression and 1 line to the floating point node. I'd be happy to support > > this minor language syntax as I will support the floating point literal > > syntax in general. > > > > I'm surmising that your apps (and possibly dev experience) are not > > extensively numerically based. But for those Velocity apps which are > > numerically oriented (such as my simulation tools), this fits in very well > > with the behavior users expect. The modelers put a value "Market Share" in > > the context with a value of 60% (meaning 0.60), thus it's a natural thing > > for the web designers to say #if($Value.MarketShare > 50%). It's > > self-documenting and is consistent with typical numerical use. > > > > Admittedly this is a minor feature. No need for a long discussion (or > > religious war -- we've had enough). But before I give up on this, I'd like > > to ask for a better explanation than "I don't like it" and "users should do > > it some other way". :-) > > > > Best, WILL > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Romianowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Velocity Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: Velocity Numerics: Floating Point Literals > > > > > > > >>Will Glass-Husain wrote: > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I put all the number patches together and installed it on our dev server > > > > so > > > >>>my colleagues could try out the new system. They were excited. > >> > >>Good! ;) > >> > >> > >>>One comment I got back was that percentages should work: > >>> #if($Value.Result == 75%) > >> > >>No way! ;) Seriously, I don't like the idea and I am *strongly* against > > > > it. > > > >>You should better teach the people to write 0.75 ;) I don't think much > > > > people > > > >>expect this to work. As Nathan already said: Let's not start a featuritis. > >> > >> > >>>Although not standard Java syntax, many numerical programs (such as > > > > Excel, > > > >>>our own simulation language, and even a hand calculator) accept a > > > > percentage > > > >>>as part of a number. Anyone mind if I add this to the floating point > >>>literal spec? > >> > >>Yes, me ;) > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Peter > >> > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
