On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:36:19PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <iblech@xxxxxx> 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
|
