On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:34:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
>If not _, then what? (if anything?)
I don't really understand your question. Currently, "." is used for
concat and that doesn't inhibit using it in a number, does it? O
Falling back on the "numbers is strings, too" legacy:
$a = 100;
$b = "000";
$c = ($a _ $b) + 1;
# I'd expect $c == 11.
If I say:
$a = 1 _ 000 _ 000;
or
$a = 1_000_000;
DWIM (In scalar context, coerce arguments to strings).
(Frankly, I think this is unlikely. But who knows?)
If course,
> Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
> If not _, then what? (if anything?)
Sure. In Perl 5, we have 123.456 and a . b, but in Perl 6, we will have
123_456 and 123 _ 456. People have to put space around '_' anway.
Hong
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 12:38, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 25 January 2002 12:34, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
> > If not _, then what? (if anything?)
>
> Sure, why not? '_' is still a valid character in an identifier. You'd
On Friday 25 January 2002 12:34, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
> If not _, then what? (if anything?)
Sure, why not? '_' is still a valid character in an identifier. You'd
still simply need disambiguating whitespace for concatenation
Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
If not _, then what? (if anything?)
--
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity.
