On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Jürgen Krämer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > > Antony Scriven wrote: > > > >> On 08/04/2008, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > The main problem with floating point is that the usual > >> > notation already has a meaning: > >> > > >> > echo 123.456 > >> > 123456 > >> > > >> > [...] > >> > >> How many people actually do that? Should they be doing that? > >> IMHO I'd force people to use whitespace for concatenation in > >> this case (i.e. 123 . 456) and have 123.456 be a floating > >> point number. That's how Perl works, for example. --Antony > > > > Search in existing scripts and you will find examples of doing string > > concatenation like this. I don't want to break existing scripts in some > > obscure way. > > > > what about a command similar to scriptencoding which would enable > support for floating point numbers in this particular script? Or just > allows to write them without the need to use a "marker"? "Marked" > floating point numbers would then always be allowed.
I like this suggestion. A mechanism that allows a script writer to declare a script as one that uses unmarked floating point numbers would be a good compromise. It would allow old scripts to remain unchanged even if they use a dot to concatenate literal numbers. Most authors of new scripts that use floating point numbers would find one added command/setting per script a small price to pay for being able to use standard notation for floating point numbers. Ajit --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
