• bearophile (7/7) Sep 13 2014 Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some
• Walter Bright (2/6) Sep 14 2014 1_000_000 solves that problem.
• John Colvin (2/10) Sep 15 2014 How does adding extra _s help with shortening constants?
• Walter Bright (2/12) Sep 15 2014 Readability is the goal, not minimizing the number of characters.
• eles (5/11) Sep 15 2014 Exactly:
• Nicolas Sicard (2/14) Sep 15 2014 What integral type would hold that value?
• eles (5/13) Sep 15 2014 Good question. This one, of course:
• Andrei Alexandrescu (2/12) Sep 15 2014 Nice :o). To the original idea, the short answer would be no. -- Andrei
• matovitch (6/13) Sep 15 2014 Well, I guess it wouldn't help the lexer. To be consistent :
• ketmar via Digitalmars-d (8/17) Sep 15 2014 both numbers aren't ints. the first is obviously "173.0", not "173".

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some 
constants?

void main() {
     int x = 1e6;
}

Bye,
bearophile

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some constants?

 void main() {
      int x = 1e6;
 }

1_000_000 solves  that problem.

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some 
 constants?

 void main() {
     int x = 1e6;
 }

 1_000_000 solves  that problem.

How does adding extra _s help with shortening constants?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 9/15/2014 1:54 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some constants?

 void main() {
     int x = 1e6;
 }

 1_000_000 solves  that problem.

 How does adding extra _s help with shortening constants?

Readability is the goal, not minimizing the number of characters.

"eles" <eles eles.com> writes:

On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:13:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 9/15/2014 1:54 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:



 Readability is the goal, not minimizing the number of 
 characters.

Exactly:
6.02214129×10^23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Some constants are widely known in the eXX form.

"Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:19:12 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:13:52 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 On 9/15/2014 1:54 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:



 Readability is the goal, not minimizing the number of 
 characters.

 Exactly:
 6.02214129×10^23
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

 Some constants are widely known in the eXX form.

What integral type would hold that value?

"eles" <eles eles.com> writes:

On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 11:31:26 UTC, Nicolas Sicard 
wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:19:12 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:13:52 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 On 9/15/2014 1:54 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:





 What integral type would hold that value?

Good question. This one, of course: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

Just joking.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 9/15/14, 4:48 AM, eles wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 11:31:26 UTC, Nicolas Sicard wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:19:12 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:13:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 9/15/2014 1:54 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 00:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 9/13/2014 12:23 AM, bearophile wrote:





 What integral type would hold that value?

 Good question. This one, of course:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

 Just joking.

Nice :o). To the original idea, the short answer would be no. -- Andrei

"matovitch" <camille.brugel laposte.net> writes:

On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 07:23:39 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Is it a good idea to accept code like this, to shorten some 
 constants?

 void main() {
     int x = 1e6;
 }

 Bye,
 bearophile

Well, I guess it wouldn't help the lexer. To be consistent :

int x = 1.73e2;

should be allowed but not

int y = 1.73e1;

Not a good idea IMHO.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:05:09 +0000
matovitch via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Well, I guess it wouldn't help the lexer. To be consistent :
=20
 int x =3D 1.73e2;
=20
 should be allowed but not
=20
 int y =3D 1.73e1;
=20
 Not a good idea IMHO.

both numbers aren't ints. the first is obviously "173.0", not "173".
more convoluted sample: is "1000e-3" represents "1" or "1.0"?

for all my scripting languages where having separated ints and floats
makes any sense, i'm using this rules:
1. number with point in it is always float.
2. number with negative exponent is always float.