On 2016-02-12 20:06, Chris Barker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com > <mailto:p.f.moore at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I have no opinion on anything other than that whatever syntax is > implemented as long as it allows single underscores between digits, > such as > > 1_000_000 > > Everything else is irrelevant to me, and if I read code that uses > anything else, I'd judge it based on readability and style, and > wouldn't care about arguments that "it's allowed by the grammar". > > > I totally agree -- and it's clear that other cultures group digits > differently, so we should allow that, but while I'll live with it either > way, I'd rather have it be as restrictive as possible rather than as > unrestricted as possible. As in: > > no double underscores > no underscore right before or after a period > no underscore at the beginning or end. > .... > > As Paul said, as long as I can do the above, I'll be fine, but I think > everyone's source code will be a lot cleaner in the long run if you > don't have the option of doing who knows what weird arrangement.... > > As for the SS# example -- it seems a bad idea to me to store a SS# > number as an integer anyway -- so all the weird IDs etc. formats aren't > really relevant... > That also applies to telephone numbers, account numbers, etc. They aren't really numbers (you wouldn't do arithmetic on them) and might have leading zeros.
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