On 2/11/2016 2:45 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: Thanks for grabbing this issue and moving it forward. I will like being about to write or read 200_000_000 and be sure I an right without counting 0s. > Based on the feedback so far, I have an easier rule in mind that I will base > the next PEP revision on. It's basically > > "One ore more underscores allowed anywhere after a digit or a base specifier." > > This preserves my preferred non-restrictive cases (0b_1111_0000, 1.5_j) and > disallows more controversial versions like "1.5e_+_2". I like both choices above. I don't like trailing underscores for two reasons. 1. The stated purpose of adding '_'s is to visually separate. Trailing underscores do not do that. They serve no purpose. 2. Trailing _s are used to turn keywords (class) into identifiers (class_). To me, 123_ mentally clashes with this usage. If trailing _ is allowed, to simplify the implementation, I would like PEP 8, while on the subject, to say something like "While trailing _s on numbers are allowed, to simplify the implementation, they serve no purpose and are strongly discouraged". -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4