On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 1:47 PM Theodore Brown <theodor...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:25 PM Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I am not exactly against this feature, but the potential for abuse > > \- like enabling people using integers for things that are not > > integers and should not be stored as integers - worries me now. > > Based on the usage analysis Bishop did, people already use integers > for number-like values (e.g. phone and social security numbers) that > can be better represented in other ways. > > Perhaps adding the numeric separator feature can actually be an > opportunity to discourage such misuse. We can add a paragraph to the > RFC (and the documentation if it is accepted) that lists examples of > usage that should be avoided. > > Ultimately there remains many legitimate uses of large numbers in > code (e.g. scientific constants, unit test values, business logic > thresholds, etc.), and this feature is a simple way to improve their > readability. > > I've lost count of the number of times I've been debugging a failing > test and struggling to count the number and position of digits to > make sure I have the right value. This feature would save time when > reading code and indeed prevent a lot of mistakes in the first place. > Well said. One need not agree with an implementation to appreciate the improved readability. If you'd like to re-open this for voting, I'm able to assist with the RFC process and any code changes.
