Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> 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.
That should be
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On the other hand, there is a case to be made that any form of number that
> might get printed by perl's unformatted i.e.
>
> print 0+$var
>
> should be reconvertible back to a string via implicit numeric conversions of
> strings. I think the only thing that would af
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> 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.
It all should be at least possible to do, but not mandatory.
> If strings in nu
raptor wrote:
> | 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.
>
> ]- Agree if u wan
(sorry, I posted it before I finished...)
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Sure. 5 + 10i will probably evaluate to "5" + "10i" and just get
> constant-folded at compile time. ;)
That's good to know. :)
> >I don't think that imaginary numbers should have
> >their own class, like real ones have.
>
> If we
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:27 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> >David Nicol wrote:
> >
> > > RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> > >
> > > > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > > > t
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > 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.
Note that in
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:26:12PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> No, I think if you want "10_000" to be 1, you can always
> eval it, but I don't think anyone reading in text should expect
> that.
I'll agree as long as we make the string "1e2foo" evaluate to 1 in a
numeric context rather than
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
> > parse
| > 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
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
At 01:27 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
>David Nicol wrote:
>
> > RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> >
> > > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > > to!
> >
> > Also 123. I think that co
David Nicol wrote:
> RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
>
> > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > to!
>
> Also 123. I think that complex numbers, if happening automatically,
> would only match
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
