Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:17:44 -0800
At 09:58 AM 12/5/98 -0800, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>At 08:58 AM 12/5/98 , Douglas Crockford wrote:
>This discussion reminds me of an old issue I think I dropped on the floor:
>I think we decided that digit sequences in numeric literals should allow
>and ignore embedded (but not leading) "_"s. This lets one break up large
>numbers in a familiar way:
> define c := 299792458 # in meters per second
> define c := 299_792_458 # in meters per second
>Is this readability difference worth it? Is there a better choice than
>"_"? Should numbers print this way too? Opinions solicited. Thanks.
[#] Use what people are used to. In the ideal world, people would be able
to use either "," or "." to separate digits, and the other to specify the
"decimal point", depending on local option. My HP calculator works this
way, with automatic insertion of the "," (my preference) as I enter digits.
[-] This change blows C syntax out of the water. There are only
"unnatural" (given the already unnatural mindset of the C programmer) hacks
possible to allow it.
[+] Being able to do it in any form will aid reading and debugging. "_"
wins on points after three rounds.