On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:36:19PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote: > On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 1_234; # surely 1234 > > 1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23 > > > > 1._5; # call of method "_5" on 1? > > 1._foo; # call of method "_foo" on 1? > > > > 1.e5; # 1.0 * 10**5? > > 1.efoo; # call of method "efoo" on 1? > > 1.e_foo; # call of method "e_foo" on 1? > > > > 0xFF.dead; # call of method "dead" on 0xFF? > > I think we should go with the method call semantics in all of the > ambiguous forms, mostly because "no such method: Int::e5" is clearer > than silently succeeding and the error coming up somewhere else.
To me, 1.e5 is not ambiguous. But maybe I've had too much dealing with floating point in a previous life. I'd find it hard defending a language that treated 1.e5 as a method call. Nicholas Clark
