• ixid (6/6) Mar 06 2013 The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability but
• simendsjo (4/10) Mar 06 2013 If someone uses different semantics on their numbers (like ISBN),
• simendsjo (9/20) Mar 06 2013 Norwegian SSNs have this structure for instance: ddmmyyxxxcc
• Adam D. Ruppe (9/11) Mar 06 2013 binary: 1000_1010
• =?iso-8859-15?Q?Simen_Kj=E6r=E5s?= (6/11) Mar 06 2013 In addition to the examples given by Simen and Adam, China and Japan
• Era Scarecrow (8/19) Mar 07 2013 Seems enforcing underscores to a particular number would be a

"ixid" <nuaccount gmail.com> writes:

The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability but 
DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of underscores 
as long as they follow a number. Is there any reason to allow 
uses like 1_00_000, which are typos or exceedingly lazy 
modifications of value, and not enforce digits to form sets of 
three after the first underscore?

"simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:06:43 UTC, ixid wrote:
 The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability but 
 DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of 
 underscores as long as they follow a number. Is there any 
 reason to allow uses like 1_00_000, which are typos or 
 exceedingly lazy modifications of value, and not enforce digits 
 to form sets of three after the first underscore?

If someone uses different semantics on their numbers (like ISBN), 
having underscores in different places will help readability as 
the underscores can show the semantics of the number.

"simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:15:07 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
 On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:06:43 UTC, ixid wrote:
 The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability 
 but DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of 
 underscores as long as they follow a number. Is there any 
 reason to allow uses like 1_00_000, which are typos or 
 exceedingly lazy modifications of value, and not enforce 
 digits to form sets of three after the first underscore?

 If someone uses different semantics on their numbers (like 
 ISBN), having underscores in different places will help 
 readability as the underscores can show the semantics of the 
 number.

Norwegian SSNs have this structure for instance: ddmmyyxxxcc 
where ddmmyy is day/month/year of birth, xxx is an auto increment 
number (that also shows somewhat the year of birth) and cc is 
control digits created from xxx where the last digit also 
indicates gender. This can be grouped in different ways: 
ddmmyy_xxx_cc, ddmmyy_xxx_c_c etc. based on what you find the 
most readable. Forcing this to be d_dmmy_yxx_xcc will clearly be 
suboptimal. Of course, hardcoded SSNs in code is a bad example :)

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 21:06:43 UTC, ixid wrote:
 and not enforce digits to form sets of three after the first 
 underscore?

binary: 1000_1010
or binary: 11001001_11110000
hex: 10_10_40_ae
or hex: dead_beef


Decimal ones might do it too, because you can use a decimal 
literal for other things, like std.conv.octal. Which is a 
specific case where I don't think you'd split other than on 
three, it is still something I could imagine.

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Simen_Kj=E6r=E5s?= <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:06:42 +0100, ixid <nuaccount gmail.com> wrote:

 The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability but DMD  
 doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of underscores as long as  
 they follow a number. Is there any reason to allow uses like 1_00_000,  
 which are typos or exceedingly lazy modifications of value, and not  
 enforce digits to form sets of three after the first underscore?

In addition to the examples given by Simen and Adam, China and Japan
place digits in groups of 4 (10 0000 0000), while India uses groups of 2
(10 00 00 00).

-- 
Simen

"Era Scarecrow" <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:

On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 06:31:39 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
 On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:06:42 +0100, ixid <nuaccount gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 The underscores in values such as 1_000_000 aid readability 
 but DMD doesn't see anything wrong with any placement of 
 underscores as long as they follow a number. Is there any 
 reason to allow uses like 1_00_000, which are typos or 
 exceedingly lazy modifications of value, and not enforce 
 digits to form sets of three after the first underscore?

 In addition to the examples given by Simen and Adam, China and 
 Japan place digits in groups of 4 (10 0000 0000), while India 
 uses groups of 2 (10 00 00 00).

  Seems enforcing underscores to a particular number would be a 
bad thing. Unless you could specify the width of them so it would 
do a side check to confirm it fits a particular format, but it 
would then clutter the code perhaps?? Hmmm..

  However using underscores it's less likely to make silly 
mistakes since you mentally can count and tell the groups are in 
2's, 3's, 4's or 5's fairly easily.