Mark S. Miller
Sat, 05 Dec 1998 17:03:25 -0800
At 11:41 AM 12/5/98 , Chip Morningstar wrote:
>... one of the design
>heuristics for E is, "when faced with a choice between elegant-and-more-
>ideal-but-a-little-alien on the one hand and imperfect-but-workable-and-
>very-familiar on the other hand, pick the latter". Use this heuristic here.
[+] Well put.
At 12:50 PM 12/5/98 , Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>[-] The 0- and 0x- convention is too universal to ignore. ... If
>you have learned almost any language before E ... Java, C++, Python, Perl)
>you already know this convention.
[+] Ok, I concede.
I purposely chose to target lightweight C-syntax-tradition programmers, not
non-programmers. Since all C-tradition languages support 0-, I think this
overrides the issue of confusing the beginning programmer. 0x- and 0- are
back in, <radix>r- is out. E isn't about arithmetic, so it doesn't need both.
Sorry if I seem wishy washy, but that's why I'm soliciting reactions -- so
y'all can help me make better decisions, and especially, help me avoid
doing something stupid. Thanks.
>> Is this readability difference worth it? Is there a better choice than
>> "_"? Should numbers print this way too? Opinions solicited. Thanks.
>[#] Perl accepts numbers containing underscores; Tcl and Python do not.
>I am indifferent on this issue since i never use underscores in numbers,
>and this convention is neither useful nor surprising for me. Certainly,
>if you do allow it, do not use any other character than the underscore.
>[-] Numbers should not print with underscores. I know of no language
>and no printing function that ever does this. If people must break
>up long numbers they can do it in some other way with commas.
[+] Underscores are read and ignored, but not printed.
I'm encouraged that Perl has already broken this ground for us.