Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from October 2001
From: Aaron Sherman
October 11, 2001 10:27
Message ID: 20011011132611.C32598@ajs.com
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 10:28:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think that's
> > something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
> > parser hacks. Up to Larry whether it goes in the base language, but I think
> > I'd prefer not.
> Speaking of string turning into numbers ...
> It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
> a string "100_000" it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
> really weird if "10indigo" became 10i, "1e3foobar" became 1000, and
> "10_000" became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
Perl's been very consistent in not handling strange things in its
string-to-number conversion because of the god-awful string processing
code that a lot of people have to write to handle stupid file formats.
For example, zero-filled numbers are not converted to octal because
many text files contain zero-filled numbers.
The idea that "0cat" is "0", but "0xat" is 10 will confuse a lot of folk.
If strings in numeric context are treated the same way as the parser
would, then I think there need to be warnings for trailing garbage.
No, I think if you want "10_000" to be 10000, you can always
eval it, but I don't think anyone reading in text should expect
firstname.lastname@example.org finger email@example.com for GPG info. Fingerprint:
www.ajs.com/~ajs 6DC1 F67A B9FB 2FBA D04C 619E FC35 5713 2676 CEAF
"Write your letters in the sand for the day I'll take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew." -Queen/_'39_