On Feb 9, 2012 12:31 AM, "oliver" <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 02:50:55PM +0000, David House wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 02:39 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> >People. Please. Tell me you are *not* arguing over underscores in
> >numeric literals !
>
> This is not totally academic. I have come across the exact bug I
> describe. It was painful.
[...]


Let me guess where the problem might be came from:

When i think of code that uses a value
 1_000_000
 and you want to change it to a value ten times higher,
 it should be  changed to
 10_000_000


Coming from notation that does NOT allow "_" in tzhe numbers,
it could be done by just adding one "0" at the end of the value:

 1000000
becomes
 10000000
        ^

with the "0" added at the end.

But also correct ("more correct" would be:

 1000000
becomes
 10000000
  ^

"0" added at the millions.

 "Just add one "0" at the end"

Is the edit-habit, which works fine.


But when allowing "_" inside numbers,
but people don't change the "wrong" editing behaviour,
then allowing the "_" at all means introducing a new kind
of possible errors.

This could be an argument to throw "_" at all,
because adding a "0" after the "1" instead of just
adding a "0" at the end is rarely used behaviour of editing,
and some people might call it "weird". ;-)

So this argument also could be used to disallow "_" at all.


But no, thats not what I want to argue for ;-)



OK, let's stop that discussion now.

If someone thinks the three-digit-distance-"_" is a feature that makes sense,
a feature wish could be added for OCaml. ;-)


Ciao,
 Oliver

--
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs