Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <EC1zG2.DFo@syd.csa.com.au>, donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes:

> However, they differ in that digits must be grouped in threes. Grouping in 
> threes is an arbitrary choice and, IMO, too restrictive. For example, it makes 
> no sense for base 2 literals. OTOH, I think Ada's free placement is too liberal 
> because it allows different groupings within the same literal.
> 
> Something in between is probably optimal - like allowing any grouping but with
> the restriction that it must be consistent within a literal.

I can envision an application using part numbers, where the first
two digits indicate the plant that built the part  and the last
two represent the revision number. In that case, 21_302_561_03
might be a much more natural representation than 2_130_256_103.
In fact, absent some other well-known (to humans) aspect of the
part numbering scheme, it would also provide a better scanning
profile than 21_30_25_61_03.

Larry Kilgallen