Really? I find that counting digits in large numbers is harder, for me at least, than expected. The scientific notation is sweet.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016, 14:57 Manlio Perillo <manlio.peri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Il giorno martedì 21 giugno 2016 18:35:13 UTC+2, Caleb Spare ha scritto: >> >> This was shut down without much discussion at >> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/42. >> >> I agree that it's a nice feature. >> >> By the way, though, one nice aspect of Go is that because of how >> untyped constants work you can write integers using scientific >> notation: >> >> for i := 0; i < 10e6; i++ { >> // ... >> } >> >> This is exactly the same as if you had written 10000000. >> >> (I don't think you'd want to do this in C or Java > > > I would not do this even in Go, since it makes the code less readable IMHO. > > > [...] > > > Manlio > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
