Ben Schmidt wrote:
>> OTOH, with & there is no ambiguity because the various uses of & are
>> strictly separated:
>
> Actually, there still is ambiguity unless one requires a decimal point or
> exponent. Without that restriction
>
> &123.456
>
> could still mean 123 (or 123.0) concatenated with 456. But with the
> restriction
>
> &123
>
> is invalid. Not sure whether that's desirable. Probably the lesser of two
> evils.
> Of course, it needs to be enforced that printf and such functions either omit
> the
> ampersand for floats which happen to be integers (probably undesirable) or
> always
> append a '.0' in this case.
>
> Would wrapping floats in braces be a better syntax? I don't think this would
> clash
> with anything: dictionaries require keys followed by colons which don't occur
> in
> floats, and a float is also an invalid variable or function name due to
> starting
> with a digit or sign (+/-) so couldn't be used as part of curly-brace
> variable or
> function names. E.g.
>
> :let myfloat={12.52}
> :let mybig={1234e56}
> :let myintegerfloat={123}
>
> To me, this is nicer than a leading &, and avoids the nasty restriction of
> needing
> a decimal point all the time/ambiguity of decimal point vs. concatenation.
Actually, to clarify, my proposal is that a set of curly braces is taken to
represent a float if and only if it is (1) not preceded by a valid variable
name
character and (2) contains a valid float.
I.e. floats:
{+123.456}
{-123}
{123e-4}
{123.456}something_to_concatenate
non-floats:
{dictionary: 'value'}
variable_name_with_number_{123}
variable_name_with_number_and_variable_e_concatted_and_included_{123e4}
variable_name_with_six_digits_here_{123.456}
{variable_name_from_a_variable}
{10<x?'variable_1':'variable_2'}
combination!:
variable_name_with_float_expression_giving_{{0.55}<some_float?'true':'false'}
variable_name_with_float_that_prints_as_integer_{{123}}
invalid:
variable_name_with_punctuation_due_to_float_{{123.456}}
I think it works unambiguously and sensibly, though, of course, you can still
do
dumb things if you try hard enough! But I don't think it breaks anything that
currently works (even if what currently works is dumb)!
Ben.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
