1g or 1G gives a BigInteger and here the suffix is required to not get an Integer. Using 1.0g/G for BD seems a natural extension.
Most expressions involving both BI and BD give the results you'd expect so I believe it was thought at the time that using the same suffix was sufficient, with toBigInteger() and toBigDecimal() allowing you to swap between them if really needed. Do you have a particular scenario that you find that the current conventions limit you, or are you just noticing the trade-offs that were made in this case and making sure you fully understand them? Paul. On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:13 AM OCsite <o...@ocs.cz> wrote: > Hi there, > > I've just bumped into > https://groovy-lang.org/syntax.html#_number_type_suffixes, namely, to > > BigDecimal > > G or g > > which seems rather pointless to me. When one enters a decimal number > (e.g., 1.0), it's a BD anyway, suffix or not. On the other hand, there > seems to be no suffix which would allow to write e.g., just 1s (s for > *something*) creating a 1 BD, which would make some sense, like e.g., 1f > for float does. > > What do I overlook? What's the point of the BD g/G suffix, and why there's > no suffix which would work without a decimal point (or exponent)? > > Thanks, > OC > >
